D&D 5E Why are vague rules praised?

Uchawi · Nov 30, 2014

The DM is free to change any rule they want, but some may be reluctant to do so if the rules are clear and hard to argue. Some like the wiggle room, or doubt, to do as they please. It also grants more leeway to make determinations on the fly.

Some like black and white, while others like shades of grey. I prefer the level of abstraction or scope be set with any rule, and based on that, the rules are made as clear as possible. I do not believe building vagueness or obscurity in rules offers anything meaningful. That is even more evident if you are improving or clarifying existing rules which D&D has a long history. From a developer standpoint is appears they are looking for an excuse to go back to when the game first started, where there was no hindsight for comparison. Unfortunately, that is not possible with D&D in present times.

Derren · Dec 1, 2014

Hussar said:
[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION], just to clarify, what do you mean by vague? Do you mean the rule is written in such a way that it is unclear as to how to use that rule (5e Castle Construction rules would qualify here - as written they can be problematic) or do you mean that the rules don't give you specific enough results?

Both, whenever someone asks about it and someone else insists of praising the rules for others having to ask how to use it.
But that happens more with the latter one (unspecific results. I can't imagine many people would praise the construction rules). In my eye there is always a better alternative to rules with unspecific results. Rules with clear results, if the intention of the designers was that players can use the rule without tinkering with it, or pure suggestions which aid the DM to find a result he and the players enjoy and doesn't screw things up unintentionally.
Unspecific results neither provide a rule which can be used as is nor to they give any help to the DM in making a ruling he is obviously expected to do. The worst of both worlds, so why is this praised?

ExploderWizard · Dec 1, 2014

Derren said:
Both, whenever someone asks about it and someone else insists of praising the rules for others having to ask how to use it.
But that happens more with the latter one (unspecific results. I can't imagine many people would praise the construction rules). In my eye there is always a better alternative to rules with unspecific results. Rules with clear results, if the intention of the designers was that players can use the rule without tinkering with it, or pure suggestions which aid the DM to find a result he and the players enjoy and doesn't screw things up unintentionally.
Unspecific results neither provide a rule which can be used as is nor to they give any help to the DM in making a ruling he is obviously expected to do. The worst of both worlds, so why is this praised?

In many cases unspecific results exist in very situation specific instances. Rather than exhaustively load pages with specific results for many situations (and still some wouldn't be accounted for) a concept or principle that can be adapted is used instead. It is often a case of the specific result being dependent on a variety of factors that may not be known until it actually comes up.

TaiChara · Dec 2, 2014

Derren said:
Something I encountered several times now is that when there is a discussion about a rule because there are multiple ways to interpret it or that it offers no help at all for the DM to adjudicate it someone comes and praises the rule as being intentionally vague so that the DM can interpret it.

My question is why? Why is it a good thing if a rule is vague or even not usable without houseruling or when the books give the DM no guideline, suggestion or other help in resolving something?
The idea probably is that this somehow empowers the DM, but why does a DM need vague rules to be empowered? He can already change anything he wants. And if the intention is to have the DM rule by himself, why make it a vague rule instead of a suggestion with helpful guidelines on what to look out for and how this ruling fits into the game world?
That would be a lot more helpful than to make a vague rule or a table with entries so vague that they do not help at all (the latest example being Carousing and not having any suggestion about what getting arrested actually means of being able to build strongholds and trade posts with no explanation what they represent and how they can be used in game).

Because it's not "vagueness", it's giving the wiggle-room needed to not have to codify everything in sight.

After too many years of dealing with people on both sides of the screen doing and expecting exactly that, 5e is a blessed breath of fresh air. Not everything needs to be pinned down in strict rules like a bug pinned to a card.

MechaPilot · Dec 2, 2014

TaiChara said:
Because it's not "vagueness", it's giving the wiggle-room needed to not have to codify everything in sight.

Sometimes it's vagueness for no purpose, just look at the construction times for 5e strongholds for an example of that.

The Mirrorball Man · Dec 2, 2014

MechaPilot said:
Sometimes it's vagueness for no purpose, just look at the construction times for 5e strongholds for an example of that.

They're not vague, they're just badly worded.

MechaPilot · Dec 2, 2014

The Mirrorball Man said:
They're not vague, they're just badly worded.

They are vague as to intent. Is the intent to have a maximum of quadruple the listed time? Or, is the intent to have no cap on the time, thus requiring the PC to stay close to the construction project and spend as little time away from it as possible until it's completed?

Hussar · Dec 2, 2014

When vague = badly worded, I'll agree that it's poor rules writing. If using the rules leads to misunderstood situations then sure that's bad.

But vague=undefined results? I got little problem with that. We used the carousing rules today in fact and everyone thought they were fine. Since we were in a dwarven city in Dragonlance, I'm not sure how Derren's specifically worded results would have worked better than what we had.

MechaPilot · Dec 2, 2014

When you say "undefined results" do you mean that in the literal sense of the outcome being undefined, or do you meant that in the sense of the intent being undefined. I am fine with the former, while I think the latter is irritating.

I also think unnecessary specificity isn't great either. Just look at the magic item creation rules. You must be a spellcaster who uses spell slots to create magic items. That automatically cuts ritual casters, magic initiates, and non-casters out of the crafting game even if they were to use special materials like dragon's blood or medusa eyes in the crafting. It also clashes unnecessarily with the spell point variant offered by that same book.

The use of "must" instead of "may" doesn't help a DM explore other options. It points a way down a narrow path instead of broadly showing someone the horizon.

Hussar · Dec 2, 2014

MechaPilot said:
When you say "undefined results" do you mean that in the literal sense of the outcome being undefined, or do you meant that in the sense of the intent being undefined. I am fine with the former, while I think the latter is irritating.

In the literal sense. Undefined as in the outcome is left to the players and the DM. Look at the Divine Intervention rules for Clerics in the Basic rules. The player asks for Divine Intervention, tells the DM what he wants to have happen, and rolls the dice. If the dice come up, the DM is instructed to interpret the request in a way that makes sense for the diety in question and give the results that benefit the character - i.e. no monkey's paw interpretations, although the exact results are left to the DM. It's pretty broad and vague, but, the intent is very clear and the results, while very much undefined, are given broad enough parameters that interpreting the outcomes aren't too difficult.

I also think unnecessary specificity isn't great either. Just look at the magic item creation rules. You must be a spellcaster who uses spell slots to create magic items. That automatically cuts ritual casters, magic initiates, and non-casters out of the crafting game even if they were to use special materials like dragon's blood or medusa eyes in the crafting. It also clashes unnecessarily with the spell point variant offered by that same book.

The use of "must" instead of "may" doesn't help a DM explore other options. It points a way down a narrow path instead of broadly showing someone the horizon.

I can get behind that. Rules need to be flexible. Although, to be fair, DM's need to be able to step up too. The degree of hand holding that some people seem to want from the rules is rather astonishing. I would hope that the DMG puts in great big letters in the opening pages the idea that you, the DM, are responsible for the game and if you want to change things, go right ahead. I mean, sure, the rules say you need spell slots to create magic items. But, is the game broken by allowing ritual casters to craft? Probably not and it's a very obvious and easy house rule which DM's should be encouraged to make, if they want to.