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

[pemerton]

More double post.

 

[pemerton]

Double post deleted.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Whereas for me, I find myself relieved by the less codified rules. I feel like I have more creative freedom. I don't worry about what's "expected" in the general sense, about where to bend and where to stay rigid. I go with what feels most appropriate for the campaign/character/situation.

I don't think either of us is "right" or "wrong." I think it's just a playstyle gap. Obviously Basic 5e is less codified than your preferred style. I am not being remotely facetious when I say I hope the DMG's optional rules systems allow you to change that. Heck, I hope there are some rigid ones there myself, because seeing new ways of handling subsystems or whatnot can only improve my DMing, too.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I agree with the OP. When I was DMing 3ed D&D the general feeling was that whenever I encountered a situation I didn't remember how to handle by the RAW, I had to look for the answer somewhere in the books. Sure I made it up sometimes, but the feeling was that it was a shortcoming on my part, not knowing the rule already... When the books offer rules that are not too codified, it already makes me feel more free and confident that I am not running it "wrong" because more often than before there is no "wrong".

I also think there is another (major) problem with heavily codified rules: that they tend to "nail down" the playstyle much more. With regard to Hiding, heavy rules inevitably imply tactical playstyle. What about those who dislike that playstyle? They have to either comply with that, or go against the rules and get that sour feeling of being a little off the community, as in "you're playing it differently than everybody else, you can't play with us". (Now of course if the rules of Hiding were clearer and simpler, they wouldn't imply much on how the game is run) Instead, when rules are less codified, being different (i.e. having to apply your interpretation) becomes the norm: all gaming groups are different, so no one is different.

I think that this openness of many rules is a key property of 5e that really allows each group to seek their playstyle and preferences without feeling like they are changing the game.

Because of that, I hope that most of the times the designers will resist the temptation of "official" clarifications or sage advice, as much as possible. It would be better instead if for every question that springs up, they would give at least 2 different examples on how to handle it.

I 100% agree with you and the OP. When I read 13th Age, I was blown away by the awesome 'tailor the rules as best suit your table' vibe that came across so strongly. The number 1 thing I want out of DMG is that same vibe. And given Mearl's comments on hiding, I'm reasonably confident we're going to get it, or something similar.

 

[prosfilaes]

. However, I've also had players get outright angry when I say "The guard is unconvinced. He's fanatically loyal to his church, and he's not going to just look the other way because you rolled good on your Diplomacy check....which I didn't ask for....". I get all the normal stuff: "You're not playing by the rules!", "You have to at least consider my roll of 29!", "You have no idea how this skill works, do you?!", etc. All because it made no sense in the game situation and circumstance...so I didn't treat the roll as an instant "I'm your bestest friend now!" thing.

If you were playing a halfling with a dagger and hit a dragon (clearly making the AC), how would you feel if the DM told you "I didn't ask for you to roll damage" because it made no sense for a dagger to pierce a dragon's hide? Combat works because we all know and agree upon the rules and there is clarification.

If you've made it clear how you deal with diplomacy upfront, that's one thing. But there is a concept of a character who can fast-talk anyone, who could convince the guard that he was really Pope Benedict and he shouldn't mention the visit to anyone, and that's not that outlandish a character concept as D&D characters go, so it makes no sense to you, but may well make sense to other people. The lack of clarification here, both inherently in the Diplomacy rules and how you're applying them is what's causing the problem.

 

[delericho]

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

Broadly, I agree with this. However, there's a place for clarification, and it's not "scattered in conversations across the internet". The best place for clarity is in the rules themselves. Failing that (and accepting that perfect clarity is of course impossible), clarifications/corrections/updates should ideally be gathered together into some sort of central document, that perhaps should be periodically updated as required.

Of course, 'errata' is considered a dirty word by some in these parts.

 

[eryndel]

Whereas for me, I find myself relieved by the less codified rules. I feel like I have more creative freedom. I don't worry about what's "expected" in the general sense, about where to bend and where to stay rigid. I go with what feels most appropriate for the campaign/character/situation.

I don't think either of us is "right" or "wrong." I think it's just a playstyle gap. Obviously Basic 5e is less codified than your preferred style. I am not being remotely facetious when I say I hope the DMG's optional rules systems allow you to change that. Heck, I hope there are some rigid ones there myself, because seeing new ways of handling subsystems or whatnot can only improve my DMing, too.

This is well said. And I'm also struck by the fact that, in the beginning of this effort, D&D Next (can we still call it that ) had a design goal to bring in past players of various editions. To accomplish that, it needs to accommodate that play-style gap. Meaning it needs to be just codified enough that there is a good structure to the rules so folks who are looking for that find it in their game (and don't feel like they have to make everything up), while also taking care of those who want to play fast and loose by giving those folks the wiggle room they need to not feel constrained by the rules.

You can't design the "one game to rule them all..." and provide for a consistent play experience across tables, so I don't think consistency across tables was ever a credible design goal. What they did do was try to hoe that middle ground and make a game that appealed to both sides of the coin (and all the many groups in between). So far, I think they done a decent job but we'll have to see what comes out of the DMG.

 

[eryndel]

If you were playing a halfling with a dagger and hit a dragon (clearly making the AC), how would you feel if the DM told you "I didn't ask for you to roll damage" because it made no sense for a dagger to pierce a dragon's hide? Combat works because we all know and agree upon the rules and there is clarification.

If you've made it clear how you deal with diplomacy upfront, that's one thing. But there is a concept of a character who can fast-talk anyone, who could convince the guard that he was really Pope Benedict and he shouldn't mention the visit to anyone, and that's not that outlandish a character concept as D&D characters go, so it makes no sense to you, but may well make sense to other people. The lack of clarification here, both inherently in the Diplomacy rules and how you're applying them is what's causing the problem.

Funny thing here is, I have two answers to your (probably rhetorical) question. If the DM made the call in my home group... I'd roll with it without concern. There's something going on that I, as a player, don't know and I trust the DM to run a good story regardless. If I've fought dragons before, and this one didn't work maybe there was something particularly tougher (increased damage resistance) that is not letting my dagger strikes penetrate. As long as I trust the DM to be consistent and run a good story... I'm fine.

For a con-game where I haven't established that trust, I'd probably be more irked. Without that trust, it does help to have at least a certain consistency of rules to reinforce that social contract that occurs within gaming. That said, I don't really consider it the games job to fill that gap of trust between DM and players.

 

[pemerton]

I 100% agree with you and the OP. When I read 13th Age, I was blown away by the awesome 'tailor the rules as best suit your table' vibe that came across so strongly.

See, 13th Age didn't blow me away in that way. Perhaps this is because I'm familiar with Tweet's earlier RPG "Over the Edge", which is a free-descriptor system (perhaps the first?) that makes Backgrounds and One Unique Thing in 13th Age PC-building look positively rigid.

I don't have any trouble tailoring rules as best suits my table. But if the designers think that precise jumping distances are important enough to give fighters a whole class feature based around that, or think the difference between 8d6 and 10d6 damage is important enough to devote around half the game's mechanics (spell slots, spell levels, spell casting, spell descriptions) to determing those differences, am I expected just to ignore them?

If changing the damage from 8d6 to 10d6 doesn't matter, then why devote half the game to pretending that it does matter?

Whereas for me, I find myself relieved by the less codified rules. I feel like I have more creative freedom. I don't worry about what's "expected" in the general sense, about where to bend and where to stay rigid. I go with what feels most appropriate for the campaign/character/situation.

I'm not sure if you're replying to me or not.

For my part, I've got nothing against less codified rules. I've GMed a lot of 4e skill challenges. I've GMed Marvel Heroic RP. I'm playing in a PbP DungeonWorld game.

My point, stated upthread and elaborated above in this post, is that if the rules are meant to be flexibly then why is so much of them devoted to pedantic points of detail? If, as a GM, I'm expected to play fast and loose (as I do when assinging damage in a 4e skill challenge, for instance) then why go to so much effort to distinguish different spell levels, spell damages etc in the caster rules? (And mutatis mutandis for Remarkable Athlete, the action economy both in general and across particular classes, etc.)

Maybe the DMG will dispel my confusion, but at the moment my confusion persists. As I said, 4e had this issue when combat and non-combat rules interfaced (eg in combat Athletics allows movement in a very defined way, whereas in a skill challenge it's all free narration all the time) but as long as you weren't resolving actions in that interface (which, thankfully, is most of the time, at least for me) it makes it clear whether the game is freewheeling and narrative, or pedantic and granular.

 

[SigmaOne]

I disagree here. That's not what I am paying for. I am OK with "some assembly required" but I am definately not fine with just a toolkit from which I need to build what I want. even an Ikea furniture has a clear and fix manual how to put it together and it's not just a couple or random boards and screws and a piece of paper saying "whatever you like"

Especially if they are running an organized play program there need to be as little doubts as bumanly possible in how to interpret the rules.

If you are going to compare playing role-playing games to putting together pre-fabricated furniture, you're going to have to do better than that. My friends and I don't get together for a few hours to put together furniture. Of course furniture has clear and concise instructions. Even board games must have clear instructions which try to eliminate edge cases, so this is a more reasonable comparison. A board game with unclear rules is not a good game (in most cases). But role-playing games are not board games, and the requirements are not the same.

I absolutely am in favor of rulings over rules, because (unlike with board games) the last thing I want at the table is for my players to be thinking about rules.
This is just as true for organized play.

I do agree when rules are presented as comprehensive but are not, that is problematic. It sets up false expectations. I do wish they'd emphasized "rulings over rules" more in the player's handbook, and I hope to see that in the dmg.