Is there any reason you think this isn't just completely made-up nonsense for the sake of a "good" internet story or simply the DM taking a natural 20 "too far" so to speak? What makes you think this is RAW and what problem is being solved by this question?

@PurpleMonkey I expect this is one or both of those things, but I’m not interested in proving this, so much as identifying if there is a system where it wouldn’t require special DM rulings to allow it. I don’t understand how this isn’t clear or on topic; it’s narrow and specific, allows a verifiably correct/best answer, and relates to rpgs...

Exactly, so what makes you think there is a system that allows this to happen according to RAW, without special DM ruling, that relates specifically to that post, and, again, what problem is being solved by this question? If the post is just nonsense the DM rolled with, what is the actual point of finding a system that allows this by RAW? Are you intending to play this system? Does it directly relate to a game you're playing?

@PurpleMonkey - the example was just that: an example. The humour was supposed to make it a more enjoyable read, too, but apparently that backfired hard... there could be many reasons, which is why I felt leaving mine out would give the question better versatility. I’m interested in looking into rules-based systems that are more whimsical in effect to find out whether I might enjoy playing them. I re-read the guide and couldn’t find anything to suggest that I need to be playing the system I’m asking about, or that it must solve a problem - that seems incredibly arbitrary...

You are correct, you don't need to be playing the game you're asking about or solving a problem (although that certainly does help) but as written the question seems quite arbitrary. Stating why you want to identify a system that allows this is extremely helpful in providing context and shows it's not just a random query. Although in this case, yes, it would be off-topic as a shopping question.

@IsaacReefman "too broad" can easily refer to the landscape of the answers your question point toward, too. Suppose for a moment there were three hundred systems that reached that level of "whimsy" by an experienced answerer's estimation. That's a broad question. (I don't know if that's an exaggeration: I can think of four that fit and I only know, like, ten systems.)

(And then Purple Monkey makes a good point about this really being a shopping question: see rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5747/23970 for a starting point to the discussion of why shopping/request/recommendation questions aren't a good fit for the site.)

But that also goes into why shopping questions aren’t good fit, and those aren’t reflected in my question! And there’s nothing anywhere I could find that dictates that a random query is not a good fit for this site

An answer with four systems listed would be an objectively good one. An answer with 20 would be objectively better.

I have close votes for off topic, (addressed above) too broad (addressed above) unclear (I really don’t know how I could have been clearer) and this is all very frustrating! I have been getting myself familiar with the site and it’s parameters and thought up this question specifically to meet them, and I don’t understand how any of the concerns you have listed or raised by close votes apply!

* just realised there was an implication that you cast the close votes. I didn’t mean to imply that. I have no idea whether or not either of you are responsible for any of them.

Both PM and I did--there's a banner below the question-text that shows the names of the five users who voted to close. (Three were off-topic:shopping, one broad, one unclear. I don't know whose were which.)

@IsaacReefman I don't think I'm really following your "random query" bit. Can you explain?

"Random query" was probably the wrong way to word that. Look at it this way, "what system allows what happened in this entirely random internet post that's probably made up or completely DM fiat?" doesn't seem very helpful (to you or future readers) because the random internet post is likely made up or DM fiat (I know the post was just as an example but it really seems like a big focus of that question).

Whereas "I'm looking for a system that allows the kind of fun thing that happened in this post. What kind of system allows this kind of whimsical play?" is much more useful because it provides context as to why you're looking for a system that allows the kind of thing that seems like it's completely made up or DM fiat but is off-topic as a shopping question.

@IsaacReefman would you say that "I'm looking for a system that allows the kind of fun thing that happened in this post. What kind of system allows this kind of whimsical play?" gets at the substantial part of your question?

(And I should cop to a bit of behind-the-scenes knowledge about who cast which votes: you can know with certainty that I cast an "off-topic" vote in this case without me saying so. That's because the close reason displayed is always (a) that of the elected moderator who voted on the post, then (b) the majority reason of close-voters, with the reason that first came in earlier being displayed if it's a 2-2-1 split.)

@IsaacReefman the latest edit puts this question squarely into "list question" territory:

I'm heading out for the night soon--if I'm not around and you have questions please feel free to flag your post or ping me/greener in main chat and we'll get back to it when we're around.

(You should also feel free to poke the other chatizens--some of them may have a different perspective on what's going on with the question.)

Ok. I’m really trying to understand what’s wrong here. While my intention wasn’t exactly recommendation, after being asked by PM to give a reason I (albeit hastily, as I’m currently with my 2yo and can only spare so much time to get onto my phone) tried to clarify that there was a point; that of identifying whether such an event could have been possible in a published system.

Part of the reason I’m interested is as I may be interested in trying something like that out, but the core of what I want to know is simpler.

I can see how my attempts at clarifying the question might make it seem like a shopping question, so I’ve re-worked it.

I think I can see how that re-working could look like a list question, but I’ve tried to make it as clear as I can that the list isn’t what I’m looking for, it’s just the proof that would validate the answer, the core of which must be yes or no.

Oh, and @nitsua60 - almost, but not quite. The substance is primarily is there such a system that is official enough to have been published? the examples are just to qualify the answer, really.