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

[Agamon]

I love EN World. We're such an ironic lot . . .

We all also have proficiency in navel gazing.

 

[zoroaster100]

I'm ok with certain rules or parts of the game having a lot of space for DM adjudication. But I don't want to guess whether a specific-looking rule is a result of sloppy wording or truly intended to be vague and up to the DM. In cases, like Hide, that the designers intend the DM to make the call as to how it works, I would appreciate if they explained that right in the rule. With things like "should the Charisma modifier apply to each bolt of a warlock's Eldritch bolt or once per casting of the spell only" I don't want to have to do the math myself to compare against similar level spells and weigh against the warlock's class features, etc. I hope the designers did that work and I want them to clarify what they intended. If I then want to adjudicate or houserule something different, I can always do that anyway.

 

[a.everett1287]

The differentiation between scope and clarity is the only reason I'll agree with the OP. I mean, as a DM, I shouldn't need to adjudicate things that should be hard coded, like class features, but the ability to adjudicate things like improvised attacks, or environmental dangers (in my case multiple ways to screw over the wizard) should be within my area of responsibility.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think it is lack of "player expectation".

The most miserable night of roleplaying I've had was with Dungeon Crawl Classics where I had to randomly roll my characters, including Race/Class. If I wanted to play meeples that I had no expectations for or emotional attachment to, I'd play a board game.

Ergo, you don't have all the "negative emotions" I mentioned earlier instantly popping up at the table because the player knows that it's up to the DM to make a ruling....not the player, not the rules.

I don't buy that at all. You may convince me that it's fruitless to discuss the matter, but you can't convince me that it's fun that the plan I spent all this time working on that has been broken because my character couldn't do what I thought they could do, and the only way I could have known this was telepathy.

Going back to your original example, you treated the player's attempt as absurd--which a super-charming person simply isn't in a D&D world. You complained about the player's die roll instead of running with it; "you made him friendly, but you needed at least a 35 to make him let you leave." Or "he's quite friendly, but he makes it clear that he couldn't do this for even the best of friends... unless maybe they had a good reason. You want to make a Bluff check?" Even a "It'd take, like, DC 100 to make it" would be better; it's the DM's prerogative to set DCs at will and you're at least acknowledging that his character's abilities matter theoretically.

And that's somewhat askew to what we're talking about here. But I think that hiding rules that are more subjective are going to lead to times when a player spends a hour real-time setting up an attack from hiding, just to be told they can't hide there. I think it's going to call for DMs to talk with players taking that ability before it comes into play and perhaps make it clear when areas are being described whether or not a "shadowy corner" are shadowy enough to hide in. It's going to require that DMs understand that players can't read their minds.

Is that a good trade-off for reducing complex rules and reducing the number of absurd situations? As a DM I'd say yes. As a potential player of a character with hiding, I'm less sanguine about it; it reduces my control over the game and increases the number of times I can't just say "I'm doing this" and have to ask "this and this, thus I can do this?".

 

[Minigiant]

Heavy rules for the game defining stuff (spells, weapon damage and properties, number of attacks)

Light rules for the low scope and less important stuff (how many tricks a dog can learn in a week, how big a table can a human leap over in a single bound, if an dragonborn can hide behind a birchtree)

Basically if most groups do something at least once every 6 hours of play,
there should be a rule for it.

 

[a.everett1287]

Heavy rules for the game defining stuff (spells, weapon damage and properties, number of attacks)

Light rules for the low scope and less important stuff (how many tricks a dog can learn in a week, how big a table can a human leap over in a single bound, if an dragonborn can hide behind a birchtree)

Basically if most groups do something at least once every 6 hours of play,
there should be a rule for it.

Yep. This.

 

[Keldryn]

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.

In my experience, the combination of open-ended situations and codified rules often leads to results that make no sense within the context of the game (some 4e powers suffered from this as well). It's usually possible to come up with a way to narrate the result in such a way that it does make sense, but it gets tiresome rather quickly.

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.

I think that combat requires more codified rules than diplomacy.

We play RPGs by verbally describing what our characters do. Diplomacy is a natural extension of how we play the game. We don't start whacking each other with inflatable swords when the DM says "roll for initiative."

Most of us have very little real world experience in life-or-death melee combat. We all interact with other people on a regular basic.

The combat system is very abstract and models the action at the level of "attacking" the orc and inflicting "damage." Until the orc hits 0 hit points, what has happened within the game world remains entirely unspecified. This is the equivalent of saying "I talk to the orc. I rolled a 19 on my Diplomacy check!" When we are actually speaking as our characters, we are no longer modeling the action at that very abstract level.

The dramatic conflict in much of fantasy literature and heroic myth is resolved in combat. This is where the stakes are highest and where the fate of the heroes hangs in the balance. On those occasions in which that dramatic conflict is resolved by diplomacy instead of combat, it may be undesirable to leave that ultimate fate up to the rules. DM: "Okay, made a Diplomacy check. Ooh, a 4? Sorry, Willow isn't moved by your sappy speech about the yellow crayon. The world ends. Roll new characters please."

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.

And if the DM really doesn't think that the guard should be able to be fast-talked in this situation, all he has to do is rule that the guard is intensely loyal (+5 to the DC), not easily fooled (+5 DC), and he has met the Pope but you're an elf and your voice doesn't sound the same (+10 DC). Now the DC is effectively impossible, and it would have saved time and frustration all around by just stating that "you sense that you won't be able to pull off your usual fast-talk routine on this guard."

 

[prosfilaes]

Most of us have very little real world experience in life-or-death melee combat. We all interact with other people on a regular basic.

Which I don't think negates the desire of some players to play a supercharismatic smooth-talker, which most of us can't in real life.

And if the DM really doesn't think that the guard should be able to be fast-talked in this situation, all he has to do is rule that the guard is intensely loyal (+5 to the DC), not easily fooled (+5 DC), and he has met the Pope but you're an elf and your voice doesn't sound the same (+10 DC). Now the DC is effectively impossible, and it would have saved time and frustration all around by just stating that "you sense that you won't be able to pull off your usual fast-talk routine on this guard."

Right. And setting a high DC is a way of dealing with it without dismissing the ability or the fact that the player tried to use it. And if you set a DC and tell them that "you sense that you won't be able to pull off your usual", then it's possible the character will pull an elixir of diplomacy and make that DC, which is the stuff that stories are made of.

 

[drjones]

It might just come down to some people like firm authoritarian rules in their imagination games and some don't. I wonder if people who prefer the 5e approach are more Cat people than Dog people?

 

[RSKennan]

It might just come down to some people like firm authoritarian rules in their imagination games and some don't. I wonder if people who prefer the 5e approach are more Cat people than Dog people?

I'm a hardcore dog person, and 5th may be my favorite edition yet (not having seen the rest of the core).