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

[Uchawi]

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.

There is always the issue of supply and demand. So players are more tolerant of DMs, then vice versa. The simple truth is a long term DM is a scarce commodity. However it is a double edge sword, because some DMs use that to validate whatever behavior they want to enforce at the table.

 

[BryonD]

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.

It is interesting seeing these two sentences together. And it certainly fits with your long history of complaints about bad DMs.

If you are forced to settle for DMs who don't expect to be more invested than players, then that is a shame and it absolutely makes sense for you to have your preference. You experiences sound liek they pretty well mandate your perspective.

I mean, I laughed some time ago when I saw your current signature. It is almost a paraphrase of a statement I have made numerous times, but it twists it in a way that loses out on some of the punch. (Though it is noteworthy that your sig *does* state that the authority ends up with the DM.)

My version is: The DM has all the authority at the table. The players have all the authority over whether or not there is a table. It is the DM's obligation to make the players beg that DM to run a game. If a DM thinks a ruling on something is different then I do ok. If I am unhappy about a different ruling from a DM, then that doesn't mean the ruling is bad, it means the DM is bad. If the DM is awesome, I'll play with whatever set of house rules/ interpretations that they want. I can't imagine a difference in how I would personally rule on something trumping the fun of a great DM.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

I guess you would hate my table then because the group I play with have always had the rule the DM has final say on rules in their game. Now in practice when I DM I will talk to my players after a session and I will listen but if I don't agree I am not going to be pressured into it by the threat of we will walk if you don't cave. In all the years no one has ever walked. As a player I give the DM the same respect and trust if I find that they can't be trusted then I walk. I will not tolerate long rules argument at the table during the session. It drags the game down.

It is not a power trip of I am god it is because I feel gaming as committee has never worked somebody has to have the last word. And since the DM is the one running the world and is considers the arbitrator or the referee then they should have the final say.

If a DM is so bad at arbitration and is unfair then simply don't play with them as a DM I don't know how forcing him to be better by committee rule actually solves anything there is to much lack of trust. What is going to stop him from doing other questionable things? Are you going to as committee decide what monsters he runs how his NPCs behave what treasure you get?

I had a rule conversation at my table a new player brought up that when he runs only named NPCs can crit that way orc 1 does not accidentally kill Frodo. I said no that with the use of action points and other measures it is very hard to actually die in my game so I was not going to do that. Several of my players did argue saying they liked it and if we ruled by majority then this would be a new rule. One that I was totally against because it was not needed in my game. Now he is running a game and it is his rule and I accept it because he is the DM.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Yes the quality of GM is paramount, but one who adheres to the principles of RAW is not less likely to be a bad GM.

Honestly, the RAW attitude along with ‘System Matters’ has had its day anyway. It was a prevalent attitude of self proclaimed ‘Indie’ gamers a decade ago - and the gaming community has moved on from it. Do I like clear, concise rules that avoid issues of ambiguity? Sure, but every gaming group is entitled to interpret them any way they want, and indeed by doing so we keep the creative element of gaming alive. To me, flatly, RAW as an argument is tantamount to being a rules lawyer.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yes the quality of GM is paramount, but one who adheres to the principles of RAW is not less likely to be a bad GM.

Honestly, the RAW attitude along with ‘System Matters’ has had its day anyway. It was a prevalent attitude of self proclaimed ‘Indie’ gamers a decade ago - and the gaming community has moved on from it. Do I like clear, concise rules that avoid issues of ambiguity? Sure, but every gaming group is entitled to interpret them any way they want, and indeed by doing so we keep the creative element of gaming alive. To me, flatly, RAW as an argument is tantamount to being a rules lawyer.

I have played with a by the book RAW only DM and I ended up leaving the game because it felt like a straight jacket. He was not a new DM and as a player he was rules lawyer to the extreme.

On the other hand I have played with DMs who didn't really understand the rules and why they were written yet changed things to the point that the game was a mess.

I think using RAW can really help newbie DMs learn their craft and as they understand more of why an how rules work they can start changing them. But some common sense is needed too. Common sense tells you that you don't need to ask for climb check every time the PCs climb a set of stairs.

 

[aramis erak]

I have played with a by the book RAW only DM and I ended up leaving the game because it felt like a straight jacket. He was not a new DM and as a player he was rules lawyer to the extreme.

On the other hand I have played with DMs who didn't really understand the rules and why they were written yet changed things to the point that the game was a mess.

I think using RAW can really help newbie DMs learn their craft and as they understand more of why an how rules work they can start changing them. But some common sense is needed too. Common sense tells you that you don't need to ask for climb check every time the PCs climb a set of stairs.

RAW only helps newbies if it is good enough to work with. I think Moldvay and Denning both made excellent starter sets because they presented the rules in a useful-as-written manner, and were building on basically solid (but not realistic) pre-extant rules.

I've not seen the starter set rules, but having seen the characters, it looks a bit short of the mark. Not because the rules are bad (in fact, I think 5e is probably the best rule for D&D to date), but because the writing isn't terribly newb-friendly. It needs the 5e answer to Moldvay. And so far, the Basic Rules PDFs aren't there, either. (The PBR are just excisions from the text of the PHB.)

 

[Elf Witch]

RAW only helps newbies if it is good enough to work with. I think Moldvay and Denning both made excellent starter sets because they presented the rules in a useful-as-written manner, and were building on basically solid (but not realistic) pre-extant rules.

I've not seen the starter set rules, but having seen the characters, it looks a bit short of the mark. Not because the rules are bad (in fact, I think 5e is probably the best rule for D&D to date), but because the writing isn't terribly newb-friendly. It needs the 5e answer to Moldvay. And so far, the Basic Rules PDFs aren't there, either. (The PBR are just excisions from the text of the PHB.)

I agree that you need good rules.

My point is the game is designed to work a certain way. A lot of effort went into balance things. I am not claiming they always get it right. So a newbie DM especially when the DM is also a fairly new player if they don't understand why rules are the way they are may end up changing rules without understanding the impact on the game. Some rules I have seen newbie do that made the game go wacky allowing warlocks to cast four blasts around. Took away all AOO on casters casting in combat and allow everyone in melee to take as many AOO as they wanted. Taking the cap of four skill points at first level off and allowing you to use the actual number of your intelligence stat to determine how many skills you get.

I am hoping to run a 5E game in a few months and I plan to run basically by the book as much as possible to get the feel for it. I like to do this with any new system I DM while I get the feel of it.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I feel so bad for the DM's here who feel that players are only casual. You must have to do so much work to make your campaigns run.

As a DM, I expect the players to assist creating setting, filling NPC's (at least the ideas for NPC's, if not the actual mechanics), supply plot hooks for personal quests and get buy in from the rest of the table to undergo said personal quests, plus numerous other elements. My players create wikis, start role playing threads on our forums outside of the game to continue in game conversations, and a host of other things.

The idea that the players just show up when the game starts and finish when the game ends is just not what I want as a player or a DM. Maybe it's because my entire group DM's as well. It's been so many years since I've been in a group where you had one DM. And, since we're all DM's, we all supply a great deal of input into the campaign that's going on.

Sorry, the whole, "Well, I do most of the work, so, I'm wearing the big daddy pants and you have to do what I say" is the complete opposite of the group I want to play in. I want to play in a game where the entire group is invested in the game to the point where everyone is participating in the game (not just their personal characters) in and out of actual game time. Which is exactly what I have now and I'm very, very happy.

If you are forced to settle for DMs who don't expect to be more invested than players, then that is a shame and it absolutely makes sense for you to have your preference. You experiences sound liek they pretty well mandate your perspective.

I mean, I laughed some time ago when I saw your current signature. It is almost a paraphrase of a statement I have made numerous times, but it twists it in a way that loses out on some of the punch. (Though it is noteworthy that your sig *does* state that the authority ends up with the DM.)

My version is: The DM has all the authority at the table. The players have all the authority over whether or not there is a table. It is the DM's obligation to make the players beg that DM to run a game. If a DM thinks a ruling on something is different then I do ok. If I am unhappy about a different ruling from a DM, then that doesn't mean the ruling is bad, it means the DM is bad. If the DM is awesome, I'll play with whatever set of house rules/ interpretations that they want. I can't imagine a difference in how I would personally rule on something trumping the fun of a great DM.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6396665#ixzz3EwU6uDZe

Whereas I simply play in a group of excellent DM's and players and the bar is just that much higher. I never, ever let my ego pretend that my rulings are somehow automatically better than anyone else's at the table just because I'm sitting behind the screen. Again, a group that is invested in the game enough to honestly and earnestly try to make the game better for everyone at the table is the best group to be in and for me, trumps any DM led group any day of the week.

Note, my sig does state that authority rests with the DM, but, since it comes from the players, that authority is still subject to the players. If the players don't challenge a ruling by the DM, then no problem. But, if the players do challenge the DM on a ruling, then they are perfectly within their authority at my table to do so. Again, the idea that a player who challenges the DM's rulings is somehow a bad player, or the idea that the only way a player can be as invested in the campaign is if the DM is bad is ludicrous IMO. It's simply indicative of top down DMing styles that I do not enjoy.

 

[BryonD]

Whereas I simply play in a group of excellent DM's and players and the bar is just that much higher. I never, ever let my ego pretend that my rulings are somehow automatically better than anyone else's at the table just because I'm sitting behind the screen. Again, a group that is invested in the game enough to honestly and earnestly try to make the game better for everyone at the table is the best group to be in and for me, trumps any DM led group any day of the week.

Funny, considering all the times you have talked about your repeated bad DM experiences.

But that is beside the point. No one is talking about "ego" or better rulings. A consistent set of rulings fromn a good DM is likely to produce a good game. Joe's rulings might be completely different than mine. In the context of game being run by Joe, I'm really happy to accept it works his way in this fictional reality, even if it works another way in "my" fictional reality. That you jump to "better" is indicative of the problem. But, so be it. I'm not the one complaining here, you are.

Note, my sig does state that authority rests with the DM, but, since it comes from the players, that authority is still subject to the players. If the players don't challenge a ruling by the DM, then no problem. But, if the players do challenge the DM on a ruling, then they are perfectly within their authority at my table to do so. Again, the idea that a player who challenges the DM's rulings is somehow a bad player, or the idea that the only way a player can be as invested in the campaign is if the DM is bad is ludicrous IMO. It's simply indicative of top down DMing styles that I do not enjoy.

You missed the point. But that is ok. B est of luck.

 

[Hussar]

Funny, considering all the times you have talked about your repeated bad DM experiences.

But that is beside the point. No one is talking about "ego" or better rulings. A consistent set of rulings fromn a good DM is likely to produce a good game. Joe's rulings might be completely different than mine. In the context of game being run by Joe, I'm really happy to accept it works his way in this fictional reality, even if it works another way in "my" fictional reality. That you jump to "better" is indicative of the problem. But, so be it. I'm not the one complaining here, you are.

You missed the point. But that is ok. B est of luck.

Note, "a consistent set of rulings from a good DM" is unlikely to ever get challenged by players aren't they? I mean, if the DM is good and is making consistent rulings, why would the players feel the need to challenge them?

The problem that I see is in the idea that seems to be, "Well, I'm a good DM, therefore all my rulings are consistent and should never be challenged by players". If you are being challenged by your players on rulings, it might be time to step back and do a bit of self examination on just how good of a DM you really are. ((Note, this is the generic, general you, not you BryonD specifically)) Which is why I see ego entering the picture.

IOW, most players are not challenging rules because they are bad players, or want to gain unfair advantages or anything nefarious like that. I truly believe that players are earnestly trying to make the game better for everyone at the table, just like the DM is. We all have the same goal, so, why not work together towards that goal, rather than resting all the responsibility and power in the hands of one person. Many heads are typically better than one.

To be fair, there are bad players out there too. But, that's a separate issue. I'm presuming good faith on everyone's part, player and DM alike. There's been numerous posts in this thread alone where that presumption is not shared by DM's.