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

[Thaumaturge]

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

I've had a cat or two, but pretty much this.

Thaumaturge.

 

[dd.stevenson]

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 allergic to cats and I like 5e.

 

[pemerton]

The DM is getting more of a say about how their game runs, yet there is still more room for player choice. There are more player character choices in this PHB than ever in the classes and background selections, yet how the game runs appears more up to the DM.

<snip>

Give what is the DM's to the DM (how the game runs) and to the player what is the players' (strategic choices for their characters). Seems like a win win to me.

I personally don't find it fun in the least to be told my character can't do what I built my character to do. Clarified rules mean it's more likely that I'm on the same page as my DM as to what my skill in Diplomacy means.

I sympathise more with prosfilaes here.

If players get to make choices about what descriptors/abilities are added to their PCs, but the GM has sole control over how those abilities actually translate into resolution at the table, then it seems to me that the players' choices were somewhat illusory.

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.

A player in a B/X or AD&D game playing a magic-user spends nearly his/her whole time thinking about rules, though - s/he is thinking about spell descriptions, and saving throws, and memorisation slots, etc. It's just that most of this is also packaged into the gameworld fiction, so thinking about the rules is also, to some extent at least, thinking as your character.

In a similar fashion, the player of a thief in those systems thinks about his/her ability descriptions, and chances of success, all of the time.

If the players can't easily translate the fictional, ingame situation into terms that interface with their PC abilities, then what is the point of all those abilities? Even "free-descriptor" games like Over the Edge, HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP, FATE, etc still use mechanical techniques for handling this translation.

There are two issues being confused here. One is the scope of the rules: How much of the game is codified versus being left to DM discretion? The other is clarity of the rules: How clear and easy to understand are they?

These are very different things. I like that 5E has limited the scope of the rules. Injecting a small amount of DM discretion can do wonders, with stealth being a good example*. But limiting scope should not come with sacrificing clarity. Take Empowered Evocation with magic missile. We shouldn't have to debate how that spell interacts with that ability. Spell damage is very much within scope, and DM discretion has no value to add here--it's just making the DM do extra work for no reason.

For what it's worth, I don't think I'm guilty of the confusion you diagnose - I think I deployed your distinction (or a version of it) in explaining the difference between 4e combat resolution and 4e non-combat resolution.

I agree with you about the role of damage in the game. My own feeling is that stealth in combat, especially when related to sneak attack possibilities, is closer to damage than to (say) what counts as a big enough bribe to get advantage on a CHA check.

My preference for Stealth rules is to make it clear what the basic parameters are - what do you have to do to activate stealth (eg partial or total cover/concealment?), and what do you have to do to maintain it (4e is pretty clear on this) - and then leave it up to the GM to adjudicate the relvant fictional positioning - what counts as sufficient cover to satisfy the requirements for activation and maintenance?

I think the use of phrases like "you can't be hidden while under observation" are particularly unhelpful. They have plagued D&D's stealth rules since Gygax's DMG entry on Hide in shadows. The problem is that they are obviously not literal - the whole point of hiding in shadows, or being stealthy, is to be unobserved/unnoticed while within someone's field of vision - and so require non-literal interpretations (like distinguishing between activation and maintenance). So why not just cut to the activation/maintentance distinction from the get-go?

Page 42 was only required due to scaling difficulties. Bounded accuracy means you only need to remember 10/15/20 (maybe 25/30 on the outside), and those DCs will work throughout the life of a character.

I don't think this is quite right. 5e PCs still scale - stat gains, proficiency bonuses, possible feats and items, etc - so a GM still needs advice on what sorts of DCs can be expected to support what sorts of diffciulty/pacing outcomes.

Page 42 also had damage, too, and presumably 5e GMs will want that sort of advice.

 

[Warbringer]

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

Pigeons; definitely a pigeon lover game.

And squirrels.

 

[Incenjucar]

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?

It's less about authoritarian rules and more about wanting to focus on adding to the story and adventure instead of filling the mad lib rules. In 4E I already had to design my own elemental classes because WotC couldn't be bothered, why would I pick up an edition where I had to design the HIDING rules, too?

Cat person, by the by (also snake person and if I don't have to clean up after them, horse person).

 

[pemerton]

Interviewer: "Do you have any other examples of what you think of as the DM’s power and responsibility?"

Mike Mealrs: "Our rules for stealth, which may sound like a funny example.

<snip>>

"So we just came out and said you know what, let the DM decide. We’re going to tell you the mechanic and just say, look DM, does it make sense that a player can hide in this situation? If so, let the player make the check. If not, don’t let him make the check. If maybe, then maybe advantage or disadvantage, that covers the middle ground."

I don't think Mearls is accurately describing 5e's rules for stealth. At least, not the ones in the Basic PDF.

Nowhere do they say "let the DM decide". Rather, they give somewhat convoluted descriptions of when stealth can be activated, and maintained, that at best are ambiguous, at worst contradictory, across a range of nouns and adjectives referring to visbility, obscuremtn and other sensory modes and impediments.

I think the problem is the idea that sufficiently comprehensive rules can rescue the game from a bad or even a mediocre GM.

I don't think that is what motivates the desire for clear rules, at least in my case.

It's not about good or bad GMing, it's about players translating their conception of the ingame fiction into meaningful action declarations for their PCs.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I don't think Mearls is accurately describing 5e's rules for stealth. At least, not the ones in the Basic PDF.

Nowhere do they say "let the DM decide". Rather, they give somewhat convoluted descriptions of when stealth can be activated, and maintained, that at best are ambiguous, at worst contradictory, across a range of nouns and adjectives referring to visbility, obscuremtn and other sensory modes and impediments.

I don't understand/disagree with this. Ambiguous rules require rulings. The need for a decision is implied by the non-specificity of the rules. One can detest that style of rules writing, and still appreciate that it accomplishes the intended goal--letting the DM decide.

I'm assuming you've anticipated this response and have a counter-argument ready. I'm jumping in because I'm genuinely curious as to where you're coming from, and would like to see you respond to a non-hostile phrasing of (what I consider to be) the obvious objection.

 

[drjones]

It's not about good or bad GMing, it's about players translating their conception of the ingame fiction into meaningful action declarations for their PCs.

And lord knows, that's not possible in 5E. That's why no one has ever successfully played the game.

 

[Psikerlord#]

And for that the rules need to be clear, especially in organized play. The last thing we need in organized play is DM1 ruling hide works like this and DM 2 ruling hide works like that. In OP a player needs to be able to go from table to table and have the same rules applying in the same way

It seems to me 5e DM judgment call rules like hiding mean the system is going to favour home groups to achieve consistency. Its not going to work very well in organised play if you are rotating DMs. That is a trade off I am personally glad was made, since I play home games almost exclusively, and I feel a bit of rules tinkering/interpretation around a table means you all get the game you want. Everyone wins.

Well ....Everyone except organised play players. I can see why it will annoy organised play players. With 5e, if you're going organised play, players will just have to accept that 5e comes with a degree of DM rulings which you wont be able to influence very much... and if that bothers you, or is important to your character, the answer is dont make a PC based around flexible rules such as hiding. Make another character which relies less on DM judgment calls.

 

[Gargoyle]

I sympathise more with prosfilaes here.

If players get to make choices about what descriptors/abilities are added to their PCs, but the GM has sole control over how those abilities actually translate into resolution at the table, then it seems to me that the players' choices were somewhat illusory.

Only if the DM and the player aren't communicating or if the DM doesn't care about player agency.

I don't think what we're saying is mutually exclusive, I sympathize with his POV too. No matter what rules system you use, the DM can interpret the rules to screw the player's strategic choices, and they need to be careful about that. I've found that just working with the player avoids much of the problem... for instance if I interpret stealth and hiding in a way that severely nerfed lightfoot halflings (perhaps unfairly) and the player of such a character objected, then there might be such an issue, but we would work through it and compromise. Know your power gamers and find out what they're up to in character generation. I've learned that that hard way with exactly these sort of problems in earlier, much more rules specific editions. If such conversations don't happen and the DM just lays down the law, that's not really a rules problem IMO, it's a social issue.