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

[Hussar]

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.

That doesn't sound like a rules issue though. You weren't quitting the game, en masse, because of a rules interpretation, you were quitting because of a railroading that you were not into. Not quite the same thing. I've had a similar situation where the group revolted on the DM for pretty much precisely the same reason - the DM was directly telling us what we could and couldn't do and was far too heavy handed about it.

OTOH, I have, and have seen, players quit games because of what they considered a track record of too many poor rules adjudications.

 

[Paraxis]

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.

Understandable, as a DM you can do many things a whole universe of things but taking over player agency and actions is not something any player I know enjoys or puts up with. Sorry to hear about the group falling apart.

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.

The groups I have been in and DM'ed have worked the same way for the most part, the DM is the group leader of a group activity, so he has more influence and say so, but yeah compromise is the key to any social group.

 

[pemerton]

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).

<snip>

I do my best to figure out the rules, make rulings at the table, and we roll with it.

Are you implying by this that, for your purposes, the rules can't be better or worse in design or presentation?

I get what you say about what the rules are for as far as it goes. But I'm curious as to whether the implication is intended. My primary use of RPG rules is for gaming among my adult friends, but I find that rules can be better or worse designed for that purpose. That was what I was trying to convey in my post to which you replied. If the rules seem to flag a whole lot of mechanical detail as important, but then don't clearly tell me what I'm expected to do with it, I find that unhelpful. Conversely, if the rules are just about resolving the fictional positioning surrounding a couple of opposed checks, I find it easier if they say so and don't build in all this (extraneous?) mechanical fiddliness.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

I don't allow any extended debate during the session. I allow all the debate and discussion you want afterwards. And I'm not talking about silly things like a reminder not to forget the fact someone has a shield. I'm talking about adjudication disagreements. If I say a fireball doesn't work because you are underwater and you feel it should have worked then that is an adjudication disagreement. We can take that off line but right this moment it didn't work.

I won't say either that I've never been convinced to change my mind. Such convincing though is done through the assumed values and approaches to the game that I use. So just saying it's RAW is not a convincing argument if I already intentionally deviated from RAW for specific reasons. Most of these sorts of disagreements though come down to each players perception of the game reality. In the game world though the DM's perception IS the reality. The DM just needs to be consistent. If he is being inconsistent then that is a good argument.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't believe the game benefits from a committee. If the DM is constantly getting overruled then he should find another group that is more compatible with his approach. If he is only very rarely getting overruled then the players should stop being jerks and let the DM be the DM.

Most of my responses here though are pretty hypothetical. I've got a long established reputation and I can either assume those who really dislike my approach never ask to play or such people don't exist in my area. I do know I have more players wanting to play than I have spots for them. I could run a game every night of the week. Maybe that is a little hyperbolic but not much.

I strongly advocate DMs learn the style they are good at and practice it with skill. If they do so then they will find players if there area is big enough to support a reasonable cross section of people. I do not though believe except in the rarest of circumstances that DMs should conform themselves to groups. Doing so makes the game less fun for the DM and as a result less fun for the players. An unmotivated DM is a killjoy for any group.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Are you implying by this that, for your purposes, the rules can't be better or worse in design or presentation?

I get what you say about what the rules are for as far as it goes. But I'm curious as to whether the implication is intended. My primary use of RPG rules is for gaming among my adult friends, but I find that rules can be better or worse designed for that purpose. That was what I was trying to convey in my post to which you replied. If the rules seem to flag a whole lot of mechanical detail as important, but then don't clearly tell me what I'm expected to do with it, I find that unhelpful. Conversely, if the rules are just about resolving the fictional positioning surrounding a couple of opposed checks, I find it easier if they say so and don't build in all this (extraneous?) mechanical fiddliness.

My implication, or at least what I might intend to imply, is much closer to: I'm probably pretty bad at D&D. I've spent time trying to be the "always get the rules right" guy. I'm tired. I'm turning into a "shoot from the hip and do my best" DM. I read the rules, I do my best to understand them, and then I make the best call I can. Afterwards, I'll happily talk to my players (ie adult friends) about issues that have arisen.

Can presentation help? Sure. Of course. Presentation can help clarify points, can give a sense of how granular everyone should be, and generally aid (or impede) fun. No doubt.

I understand your issues with certain rules (broadly speaking). I'm just not too hung up on those myself. I understand why you are. I just am not. I'm mostly just too tired. Certain rules work fine for me, but they are unclear to you, which is an indication they could have been better written. Especially since you've certainly spent more time pouring over them than I have.

And I think "mechanical fidiliness" is a part of the D&D brand, for better or worse.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Dartavian]

My implication, or at least what I might intend to imply, is much closer to: I'm probably pretty bad at D&D. I've spent time trying to be the "always get the rules right" guy. I'm tired. I'm turning into a "shoot from the hip and do my best" DM. I read the rules, I do my best to understand them, and then I make the best call I can. Afterwards, I'll happily talk to my players (ie adult friends) about issues that have arisen.

Can presentation help? Sure. Of course. Presentation can help clarify points, can give a sense of how granular everyone should be, and generally aid (or impede) fun. No doubt.

I understand your issues with certain rules (broadly speaking). I'm just not too hung up on those myself. I understand why you are. I just am not. I'm mostly just too tired. Certain rulea work fine for me, but they are unclear to you, which is an indication they could have been better written. Especially since you've certainly spent more time pouring over them than I have.

And I think "mechanical fidiliness" is a part of the D&D brand, for better or worse.

Thaumaturge.

+1 , Grand Slam & Game Over!

 

[Hussar]

I don't believe the game benefits from a committee. If the DM is constantly getting overruled then he should find another group that is more compatible with his approach. If he is only very rarely getting overruled then the players should stop being jerks and let the DM be the DM.

Most of my responses here though are pretty hypothetical. I've got a long established reputation and I can either assume those who really dislike my approach never ask to play or such people don't exist in my area. I do know I have more players wanting to play than I have spots for them. I could run a game every night of the week. Maybe that is a little hyperbolic but not much.

I strongly advocate DMs learn the style they are good at and practice it with skill. If they do so then they will find players if there area is big enough to support a reasonable cross section of people. I do not though believe except in the rarest of circumstances that DMs should conform themselves to groups. Doing so makes the game less fun for the DM and as a result less fun for the players. An unmotivated DM is a killjoy for any group.

Whereas for me, it's the complete opposite. Nothing kills my enjoyment as a player faster than knowing that my opinion of the rules is pretty much always going to play second fiddle to the DM. I am just as invested in the campaign as the DM, and the presumption that I cannot be as invested as the DM because I'm not running the game is one I rarely find true. As a DM, knowing that the players are so invested in the game that they are constantly trying to make the game better for everyone is just too rewarding to ignore.

Players who take responsibility of the game are the best kind of players IMO. It means that I, as DM, just have to take the lightest touch and let them worry about making sure everyone is having fun. The top down approach just kills the feeling for me faster than anything else. I hate doing it as the DM, and I hate playing that way.

And, yes, this is 100% a play style thing. Totally. And there is certainly no right answer here, just different ways of doing things.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I am just as invested in the campaign as the DM, and the presumption that I cannot be as invested as the DM because I'm not running the game is one I rarely find true.

This is highly dependent on the group and the game. Some DMs are as casual as many players, don't spend very much effort on game prep, and just run published material. It is quite easy for a player to be just as, if not more invested in the game than the DM.

OTOH, a DM who creates a setting, custom adventures, and commits a boatload of time to the campaign is probably much more invested than the players.

 

[Sadras]

I don't allow any extended debate during the session. I allow all the debate and discussion you want afterwards.

It depends on the situation for us, if its critical we will make the ruling their and then, if not, we hand wave it and discuss it afterwards. But generally if a player mentions a problem, its usually "game reality" as you mentioned. It has occurred that the rules are an issue for me too for the same reason, and I express motivations for my dissatisfaction with the rule and generally we all put out minds to come up with something that is acceptable to both players and DM. It certainly helps with like-minded people.

Typical ruling instances during the playtest run (this is before the official 5e rules came out)
1. Instant unconscious/conscious mechanic from magical or non-magical healing (when dropping below 1hp)
2. Determining a save system for KO a person
3. Haste spell on person accelerating imbibed potions, healing or other effects currently ongoing with said person.
4. Spell interruption during combat, or limitations/dangers of casting during melee
...etc

But yeah to each their own and as long as everyone is having fun. Thanks for the reply.