D&D 5E Should player's assume if it's in the DMG then it's RAW?

[Sailor Moon]

Just to quote the DMG:

This book has two important companions: the Player's Handbook, which contains the rules your players need to create characters and the rules you need to run the game, and the Monster Manual, which contains ready-to-use monsters to populate your D&D world.

 

[pkt77242]

You can physically read the DM guide all you like, but assuming the book is for players and therefore assuming whats in it can be expected is where the mistake comes into play.

I would say that not letting players know in advance if you can sell magic items is part of the problem, and the fact that you keep wanting to say the player made a "mistake" is pretty telling on how you are blaming them but are not taking any responsibility for the lack of communication.

 

[Mephista]

Truthfully...

I would not assume anything in the DMG is true for any game world. Sigil is mentioned in the core book - should I assume it exists if I'm playing a Greyhawk game? Should I assume that Holy Avengers exist in a low magic setting, just because its in the book?

My knee jerk reaction was to assume that anything in the DMG is true until proven otherwise. However, when I really thought about it, there's a lot of things that really don't make sense to assume as the default. Given that the GM has absolute control over all NPCs and setting details, including anyone who might buy a magical item, assuming that selling a magic item will be easy as making a few rolls is kind of iffy.

I don't see anything wrong with a player going, "Hey, I want to try and sell this magic item." And likewise, I see no reason why a DM would have to explicitly say that you're doing it differently ahead of time. I don't even have a problem with the player trying to have a discussion with me over a rule. Sometimes, I misremember stuff with everything I need to keep in mind, while players just need to know their character. I do have a problem with a player going "Well, the DMG says XYZ! You have to do it that way!" That's rules lawyering, and is frankly unwelcome.

But a conversation that's something like this - "I want to sell item X." "No, we're not rolling like that. Its different in my world." "Oh, I kinda assumed because of page XX... well, whatever, my character is still trying to sell. How do you want to handle it?"

That's the kind of thing I expect from my table. Player had a minor detail wrong because of something we just hadn't gotten around to talking about yet, realized how things went, and then we went ahead with the game.

 

[seebs]

You can physically read the DM guide all you like, but assuming the book is for players and therefore assuming whats in it can be expected is where the mistake comes into play.

I dunno, see, I'm sympathetic a bit just because 5e really does pitch the idea that these things are suggestions, but I still say that players have always been actively encouraged to learn how the rules work, and the DMG is full of rules that the PHB refers to and says "there's more detailed rules for this in the DMG". I have the DMG, my GM doesn't yet, and I've been talking to him about item creation and things like that, referring to the DMG rules because they're the suggested rules the PHB told me to look at.

I mean, if a player asked whether you were going to use the 1-2-1-2 rule for diagonals, I don't imagine you'd be mad at them for looking in the DMG for a rule, right?

 

[baradtgnome]

I am with Morrus. Communicate. Keeping expecations aligned keeps from unhappy surprises. It is not that hard to set expectations at the beginning and in our groups that is always the DM's responsibility.

I keep seeing the word assume all over these posts. If we communicate more we can assume less. Works for us. Hope it will work for you.

 

[SkidAce]

I mean, if a player asked whether you were going to use the 1-2-1-2 rule for diagonals, I don't imagine you'd be mad at them for looking in the DMG for a rule, right?

I think this is the disconnect some are having.

Players asking about diagonal rules = great! fantastic!

Players assuming or trying to force the DM "because its in the book" = not so good.

Having said that, group dynamics and the social contract among friends/hobbyists would hopefully be better than that, and the issue would be resolved easily and quickly.

 

[GlassJaw]

I blame 3ed/d20 for this problem. Everything - classes, monsters, NPCs, etc. - all followed the same rules. It empowered players to reverse engineer everything but in the process, DMs lost control of being able to surprise their players. 5E: take the power back!

 

[Lidgar]

I blame flumphs.

 

[Mephista]

I'm of the opinion that expecting the GM to have every little thing spelled out is harsh, and, frankly, unrealistic. A major change to, say, the core classes? That's something that definitely needs to be mentioned. The economy of the game? That's pretty minor and easy to slip your mind, especially when there's a high chance it won't even come up in play.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I'm of the opinion that expecting the GM to have every little thing spelled out is harsh, and, frankly, unrealistic. A major change to, say, the core classes? That's something that definitely needs to be mentioned. The economy of the game? That's pretty minor and easy to slip your mind, especially when there's a high chance it won't even come up in play.

I agree with you there and I believe that is why this edition took special care to put exactly what the player needs to know in the PHB. Anything outside of that is the DM's knowledge and never to be assumed.