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

[Minigiant]

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.

But what if I like sneaky PCs?

That's the main issue.
The rules on the iconic and important things should be clear.
In D&D, that's combat actions, weapons, armor, stealth, detection, lighting, spells, and hit points.

As much as I love tracking, tracking is not important in D&D. Neither is crafting or using rope.

But stealth? Rogues, rangers, monks, and bards are sneaky classes and 5e expands it more with backgrounds. Stealth is important. And if you leave stealth rules up to DM, DM A's rulings can weaken many archetypes whereas DM B's could make rogues broken as heck.

"John, before I make a PC. Can I have your interpretation of hiding?"

"Okay everyone, ignore stealth. No rangers or rogues. Jim says once the orc sees you, you can't hide again."

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I'm not [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (a sad shortcoming on my part), but to my mind the obvious rejoinder is that if you want the rule to be up to the DM, don't leave it ambiguous in the rules text. Make the rule say "If you want to declare your character as trying to hide, ask the DM if the situation allows such a check." Then you can drop all the "lightly obscured" or "hiding under an ally" useless text.

 

[Prism]

But stealth? Rogues, rangers, monks, and bards are sneaky classes and 5e expands it more with backgrounds. Stealth is important. And if you leave stealth rules up to DM, DM A's rulings can weaken many archetypes whereas DM B's could make rogues broken as heck.

"John, before I make a PC. Can I have your interpretation of hiding?"

"Okay everyone, ignore stealth. No rangers or rogues. Jim says once the orc sees you, you can't hide again."

I love sneaky characters too. However I don't like easy hiding in combat. I think it should be very hard to do without several rounds of full cover, concealment and movement if you really want to be hidden. I know that no modern rules are going to cover my exact requirements but the 5e rules give me plenty to work with. Other DM's are far happier with simply round by round hiding in combat. Surely an open rule set that can cover both of out needs is better than a very specific one that makes one of us unhappy.

If I was to DM organised play I would be far more open to the players wishes though. This is just the way our regular group likes to play

 

[dd.stevenson]

I'm not @pemerton (a sad shortcoming on my part), but to my mind the obvious rejoinder is that if you want the rule to be up to the DM, don't leave it ambiguous in the rules text. Make the rule say "If you want to declare your character as trying to hide, ask the DM if the situation allows such a check." Then you can drop all the "lightly obscured" or "hiding under an ally" useless text.

It's obvious that there are methods other than rules ambiguity to force a DM decision. How does this make Mearls wrong when he says that the ambiguous rules text is a call to let the DM decide?

 

[SkidAce]

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.

XP awarded for cosmic truth...

 

[Haffrung]

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.

Yep. I have shelves full of boardgames. I probably spend more time playing them than RPGs. And issues I might have in boardgames rules are largely irrelevant to issues I have with an RPG book. Because when I play RPGs, I'm using an entirely different part of my brain, for entirely different reasons, than when I play boardgames.

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

Fair enough. And we should be clear that there are rules for hiding and stealth and 5E D&D. However, the exact context for their application is left to the DM, because strictly defining that context would require a tremendous amount of very detailed explanation - and it would still have ambiguity because that context is in multiple peoples' imaginations, not on a table.

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.

What's the alternative? How can multiple people always reach consensus on context in a game that takes place largely in the players' imaginations, and where many people don't want to have control over anything more than their own character? D&D was a revolutionary game because it gave players entire imaginary worlds to play in, and the tool it uses to manage that enormous scope is assigning one player the role of referee.

 

[Greg K]

The thing I've noticed happening more and more as rules systems become more "codified" (re: 3.x onward), is that I see more negative emotions at the table.

What I mean by negative emotions is simply that; the player comes in with some expectation....like, he brings his "Ultimate Book of the Arcane" (or whatever), and he expects to be able to use it. I may give it the once-over, and if I don't like what I see, it's generally "Nope, sorry. I don't own that and am not likely to buy it. I don't think it fits in with my Greyhawk campaign anyway". At that exact moment I've become a "bad/controlling/evil/unfair DM". Now, that's a whole optional book, so one may overlook that as a player foible. 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.

The above in 3e is a player issue given Rule 0 and that the DMG explicitly states that the DM is in charge of how the game is run at the table and which rules to use and which to ignore.

 

[drjones]

Have you ever noticed that almost 0 CRPGs and MMOs have any sort of stealth that is not just magic invisibility? DDO had a light based system but it was still super vague and magical. Even games that are all about stealth have very unnatural limitations built in.

The reason is that stealth is extremely hard to calculate and implement in a simulation. Either you make it so that you need perfect LOS avoidance to infinite distance and simulate anything that could possibly make noise about the character or you sacrifice perfect simulation for workable gameplay or you make stealth useless

For those with strong objections to the 5e approach, please point to a workable ruleset that does not need 'common sense' interpretation at the table, is not magical invisibility and keeps stealth fighting techniques viable. I'm sure if there is demand for it, some other game has done it perfectly already.

 

[Greg K]

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

Then, let the people in charge of organized play come up with their clarifications as to how they want things to work and make it available to their judges. The organized play community can then treat themselves as one big table.

 

[Haffrung]

Then, let the people in charge of organized play come up with their clarifications as to how they want things to work and make it available to their judges. The organized play community can then treat themselves as one big table.

Absolutely. Shaping the whole game to suit the needs of organized play is penny wise and pound foolish.