coolAlias
Explorer
2nd AD&D is when I first started playing.So, again, without prying, I think at least part (but not all) of the divide is when you were exposed to the rules.
I understand that viewpoint, and I agree with it except for when it comes to forcing player decisions.I did a separate thread checking other people and their experience with "lore" rules (clerics can't/won't use edged weapons, monks can't/won't use oil, druids can't/won't use metal armor) from OD&D/1e, and the experience was the same-
that's just the way it was.
To the extent these lore rules are increasingly odd in 5e, I can understand that, and I appreciate that.
But to me, the weird thing is people who argue that rules without penalties ... aren't rules.
Compare, for example, to the Paladin oaths. Yes, they swear to uphold these and "won't" break them, except that they might - what if the player wants a redemption arc, or what if it's a dilemma where at least one oath is getting broken no matter what?
In general, absolutely the druid should not be wearing armor because that's the rule. But because it says won't instead of can't, if an exceptional case similar to the above paladin's ever came up, as a player I'd want to know WHY my druid won't wear armor. Then and only then am I able to make a rational in-character decision of "is it worth {x} to wear this metal armor for a bit?"
It's a lore rule with no real flavor or explanation in the 5e PHB. They will happily wield metal weapons, but not shields, and not armor. Okay. That's fine. But when those in-game decision points come up and a player is considering whether they should "break" that rule, just as a Paladin might break their oath rules, they deserve to know why they shouldn't, and should be allowed to do so if they choose. Again, just like the Paladin.
I can whole-heartedly agree with that, even though I sometimes fall into the rules-lawyery category. I've been trying to break the habit.
I would add that my first post here stressed that if a player came to me with a particular concern, of course I would work with them. But there is nothing in the world worse than a rules lawyer that grinds the game to a halt; luckily, these players usually quickly self-identify for rapid, and TYRANNICAL, removal.