D&D 5E I for one hope we don't get "clarification" on many things.

[Evenglare]

I know I'm probably in the tiny tiny minority of people, but ever since I got 13th age I have loathed specific rules now. I watched that interview where Mike Mearls talked about why hide is like it is. I know it's a huge debate on how it works, but that's what it should be IMO, it should be specific to DM ruling. Other things that initially annoyed me were things like spell books and copying spells, in older edition it was a spell level per page, but in this edition there is no specific point, so I get to make it how I want it. I know I can do this in pathfinder and 3.x but having an explicit rule in a book and having to explain my way can cause friction with players and rule lawyers. So yeah, I don't want errata to fix this stuff, use errata to fix minor spelling errors and things like the warlock spell list. But the rules as they are allow ME as a DM to interpret them how I wish and I love this.

The thing I think they need to make clear is that the DM should decide many of these things. I also think they need to explain that the game is a toolkit not the game itself. Again, in that interview Mike Mearls said it was more like an operating system rather than a game itself (using vernacular of computers and game consoles). If you approach the game with this intent so many things become clear, also if you come from a very freeform game like 13th age 5th edition seems to strike a great balance between rules and rulings. So that's my take on it. Anyone feel the same?

Also completely unrelated (kind of) I just got the pathfinder advanced class guide and damn them for making what is now my favorite class in any game ever. Celestial Bloodrager. I'm already porting this to 5e's barbarian (with several bloodlines like demonic, draconic, fey, celestial, elemental etc). If you don't know what the bloodrager is, it's a combination of barbarians and sorcerers so when you rage your bloodline becomes apparent. In the case of celestial you rage and you become angelic. It's so damn cool. So keep a look out for that on the homebrew board.

 

[RSKennan]

I'm with you on the clarification aspect. I hope Wizards keeps trusting the creativity of its DMs.

 

[Agamon]

Agreed. In fact, Dan's discussion on the latest Fear the Boot podcast made me think of this exact topic.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I watched that interview where Mike Mearls talked about why hide is like it is.

What did he say?

 

[Paraxis]

I have the exact opposite opinion. The rules should be as clear and concise as possible with as little room for interpretation as possible.

Why? because it provides a consistent experience across all the tables, it makes organized play easier and well more organized, it keeps published adventures on the same expected difficulty, but most of all the rules provide our shared language as people who want to talk about the game.

The job of the game designer is to you know design a game, if they can't bother to make clear rules with some balance in them, and when stuff comes up the default answer is just let the DM fix it that is just bad.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't want a consistent experience "across tables." RPGs are about the people. If the campaign isn't heavily influenced by both the DM and the people playing it--in major ways--something's gone wrong, IMO.

Yes, there's a minimum level of clarity to strive for. The basic skeleton of the rules should be solid. But beyond that, I'm prefer DM interpretation to any attempt at codifying the corner cases.

 

[Evenglare]

I don't want a consistent experience "across tables." RPGs are about the people. If the campaign isn't heavily influenced by both the DM and the people playing it--in major ways--something's gone wrong, IMO.

Yes, there's a minimum level of clarity to strive for. The basic skeleton of the rules should be solid. But beyond that, I'm prefer DM interpretation to any attempt at codifying the corner cases.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[MerricB]

I'm quite happy leaving most of the rulings to the DM.

There's just a few areas where some additional clarification would be good, especially when it comes to Organised Play.

Stealth and Hiding being the big issues. The rules make a lot, lot more sense when you hear Mike Mearls talking about how they should work and leaving things up to the DM to cover those cases that writing comprehensive rules wouldn't really work for, but they aren't expressed that way in the PHB. Instead, they read like a set of hard-and-fast rules with bits missing.

So, clarification of that sort of stuff in the DMG would be appreciated.

Cheers!

 

[Mouseferatu]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Well, you probably could have avoided my typos...

 

[GMMichael]

So, what you want is rule zero?

To be honest, some GMs deserve R000, and some don't: the ones who need other rules to back them up.