D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

[Thaumaturge]

You ah... you wouldn't happen to be ah... a single dwarven woman by any chance, would you?

Alas as a married, 6'5" tall, male I fail at each of those descriptors.

Your search continues.

If Stealth in 5e was simply a matter of adjudicating whether the hiding character is sufficiently obscured to make the check, it would be very simple. But so many other mechanical elements, spelled out in great detail across various pages of the rulebook, are intended both to feed into that determination, and to follow from it.

For me, at least, this is when a system for action resolution goes beyond just making it work among a group of adult friends. It implies to me that the designers had something in mind, that they thought (for instance) that it was significant to distinguish between different degrees of obscurement, and to give Wood Elves a racial advantage for hiding in conditions that normal people can't hide in. This is when I prefer that the designers be clear about what they had in mind.

For me and in my experience, no set of D&D rules ever goes beyond "just making it work among of a group of adult friends". That's all the rules are there for (for me). There was a bit of time where the rules were about "making it work among a group of adolescent friends" and then, later, "among a group of technically adult, but probably still adolescent, friends".

But that's all the rules have ever been for me. I do my best to figure out the rules, make rulings at the table, and we roll with it.

Sporadically, I come online to talk about the rules and my rulings, but that's a completely different pastime that happens to share some vocabulary.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Emerikol]

Nobody can find any ambiguous or often house-rules rules in any of those games that experienced GMs might know have been contentious? I find that hard to believe.

If you really do use common sense there are not that many problems. The issue arises most of the time when a player believes he has found an exploit and tries to use it to gain advantage in the game. It never works in my games but it is a common trait in some gamers. To them it is a competition with the DM. I have not patience for such shenanigans anymore. If I as DM really wanted to play that game I'd win it every time. Would I have any fun doing it? No. So I just avoid the whole thing. I am not going to allow a slavish adherence to RAW ever overrule common sense in my game. Immersion is too important in my style of gaming.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

As opposed to the game being ran by committee. The day a group of players would try to overrule me as DM by majority vote would be the day those players were looking for a new DM. And just to be clear, I live by my standards both as a player and as a DM.

Whereas as I cherish the fact that our group operates by consensus and majority. Hey, if you lose players, send them my way, I'll welcome them with open arms.

If only this were true for everyone or even most people. A lot of people are trying to deliberately find loopholes in the rules and turn them to their advantage in the game. They are inevitably frustrated by me as a DM. Which is good because I really don't care to have those types of players in my game anyway.

Heh, I take all sorts of flak because I'm pretty down on DM's. Yet, it's because of comments like this that I am very negative about DM's. I haven't seen this sort of player since high school by and large. The vast majority of players I've had at my table are far, far more restrictive in their interpretations than I am. I almost wish my players did try to take advantage of the game more often. Would mean that I could really pull out the stops when challenging them.

 

[Sadras]

As opposed to the game being ran by committee. The day a group of players would try to overrule me as DM by majority vote would be the day those players were looking for a new DM. And just to be clear, I live by my standards both as a player and as a DM.

I have to ask, you do of course allow debate, logical discourse and the possibility from a player to motivate and perhaps even persuade you at your table? Generally should a rule bother me, as DM, or the players we engage in discussion and seek clarity or an acceptable alteration of that rule for both parties concerned.
I often find that more heads are better than mine alone.

 

[prosfilaes]

And yet you repeatedly give examples of evil DMs so I can only suppose you don't know what you are talking about on this matter.

If someone who supposedly holds a position doesn't recognize your summary of their position, it's not a good summary. (Nor do I give examples of evil DMs; an evil DM could be an awesome DM, just don't stay over if he offers and be prepared to help the police when they come around asking questions.)

As opposed to the game being ran by committee. The day a group of players would try to overrule me as DM by majority vote would be the day those players were looking for a new DM.

I have never heard of a group of players trying to overrule the DM by majority vote. Ever.

 

[Thank Dog]

I have never heard of a group of players trying to overrule the DM by majority vote. Ever.

Maybe not in a formal sense of, "All opposed? The nays have it!" But in a peer pressure, everyone griping sense, absolutely I have had that happen. The most notable recent incidents were during the 5e playtests where 3.x/PF players constantly ruled as a group in favour of themselves. I left that group and have since discovered that the players have run ramshod over the DM to the point where they now get all the treasure of dead PC's, kill off their own PC's, and when a PC dies the rest of the party gets their share of XP while a new PC gets brought in at the same XP as everyone else.

That's just one example of many I've experienced over the last 25 years.

 

[aramis erak]

I have never heard of a group of players trying to overrule the DM by majority vote. Ever.

I've seen it. Hell, I've DONE it. The DM told us we were going onward - and we, the party, rebelled. When she put her foot down, we walked. End of campaign.

 

[Paraxis]

I've seen it. Hell, I've DONE it. The DM told us we were going onward - and we, the party, rebelled. When she put her foot down, we walked. End of campaign.

Could you explain "going onward" because that doesn't sound like something to end a campaign over.

 

[Hussar]

Paraxis - I have to say that my group operates largely that way. The DM makes a ruling that is challenged. We work as a group to find a compromise and in the case where the DM is in the minority, he or she backs down and changes his or her ruling.

 

[aramis erak]

Could you explain "going onward" because that doesn't sound like something to end a campaign over.

We wanted to retreat back to town, recover. She insisted we must continue the dungeon from where we were without going back to reprovision, and that we were compelled to do so. When she insisted, everyone, including her boyfriend, told her "no." she continued to insist, so we voted with our feet.