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

[Raith5]

I don't want a consistent experience "across tables." RPGs are about the people. If the campaign isn't heavily influenced by both the DM and the people playing it--in major ways--something's gone wrong, IMO.

Yes, there's a minimum level of clarity to strive for. The basic skeleton of the rules should be solid. But beyond that, I'm prefer DM interpretation to any attempt at codifying the corner cases.

But clear rules are required to make sense of what is a corner case and what is not.

I mean the DM is a master of context where he or she determines when circumstances overrule "the rule" - so you dont need to specify that invisibility may not work well in a swamp or in snow etc. But I dont think DM interpretation should be open slather reason to not have clear rules.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Sorry Paraxis, I'm going to also "rule against you".

I've been doing this shtick (DM'ing) for three and a half decades, give or take a year, and one thing that I've seen over those long years is desire by "game designers" to try and codify everything. This has only made the play of the game, IMO, significantly worse. I've been lucky enough to generally have the same players for a decade or three, and so our tastes are known and accepted at the table. I have run one-offs for other people as well. 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.

By having books upon books upon books to "codify" the rules, it bogs the running of a game (and the enjoyment of doing it!) down to a level that really isn't worth the effort, IMHO. It also only takes one "clarification" on a supposedly vague rule to shanghai a session for a good 10 to 15 minutes as the player (it's usually a player nowadays, sorry) flips open a book to point out that this is the "official way it's supposed to be done now". As if some other DM's rulings are somehow better simply because his rulings got printed in a book. ><

Anyway, what I would have no problem with is a sort of "Sages Corner" thing (if you're too young to remember that, it was a little section in Dragon magazine that the game designers would speak up on how they would handle a particular situation or rule. I'd welcome it...as long as there were always at least two different suggestions/rulings. I don't think that 5e would benefit from that sort of thinking..."we're right, you're wrong...do it our way if you know what's good for you". Right now they have a good momentum going. One where the DM is an integral part of the running of a game....and not just "the guy rolling for monsters" behind the screen.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Mouseferatu]

But clear rules are required to make sense of what is a corner case and what is not.

Which is why I said the skeleton should be solid and that there is a minimum clarity to strive for.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree with the OP. When I was DMing 3ed D&D the general feeling was that whenever I encountered a situation I didn't remember how to handle by the RAW, I had to look for the answer somewhere in the books. Sure I made it up sometimes, but the feeling was that it was a shortcoming on my part, not knowing the rule already... When the books offer rules that are not too codified, it already makes me feel more free and confident that I am not running it "wrong" because more often than before there is no "wrong".

I also think there is another (major) problem with heavily codified rules: that they tend to "nail down" the playstyle much more. With regard to Hiding, heavy rules inevitably imply tactical playstyle. What about those who dislike that playstyle? They have to either comply with that, or go against the rules and get that sour feeling of being a little off the community, as in "you're playing it differently than everybody else, you can't play with us". (Now of course if the rules of Hiding were clearer and simpler, they wouldn't imply much on how the game is run) Instead, when rules are less codified, being different (i.e. having to apply your interpretation) becomes the norm: all gaming groups are different, so no one is different.

I think that this openness of many rules is a key property of 5e that really allows each group to seek their playstyle and preferences without feeling like they are changing the game.

Because of that, I hope that most of the times the designers will resist the temptation of "official" clarifications or sage advice, as much as possible. It would be better instead if for every question that springs up, they would give at least 2 different examples on how to handle it.

 

[Mirtek]

I also think they need to explain that the game is a toolkit not the game itself.

I disagree here. That's not what I am paying for. I am OK with "some assembly required" but I am definately not fine with just a toolkit from which I need to build what I want. even an Ikea furniture has a clear and fix manual how to put it together and it's not just a couple or random boards and screws and a piece of paper saying "whatever you like"

Especially if they are running an organized play program there need to be as little doubts as bumanly possible in how to interpret the rules.

 

[GSHamster]

Another advantage--which I think we're beginning to see on the message boards--is that the small ambiguities force the knowledgeable people to be aware of the trade-offs.

For example, if Rule X is ambiguous, and someone asks about it on the forums, you're more likely to see:

"Well, you can go two ways. If you go with Option A, then W and X will happen. If you go with Option B, then Y and Z will happen."

Then you get discussions of when each outcome is desirable or not desirable. And hopefully that attitude about trade-offs gets extended to other parts of the hobby or forums, and people are less absolute in their positions.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I disagree here. That's not what I am paying for. I am OK with "some assembly required" but I am definately not fine with just a toolkit from which I need to build what I want. even an Ikea furniture has a clear and fix manual how to put it together and it's not just a couple or random boards and screws and a piece of paper saying "whatever you like"

Nobody's talking about a piece of paper saying "whatever you like." There's a wide range of variability between that and hard, codified instructions.

I don't know what they look like now, but when I was a kid, LEGO sets came with instructions for the main idea/shape, but also suggestions for others. And they were bought with the understanding that they worked for whatever was pictured on the box, and for anything else you wanted to build with them.

There's plenty of room between the two extremes.

 

[Mouseferatu]

To put it another way...

One extreme is no rules/guidelines. That's kids playing make-believe on the playground. "I'm Anakin Skywalkr!" "Oh, yeah, well I'm Superman." It's Calvinball.

On the other extreme is chess, where there are a very limited number of strictly regulated movements. Or, if you prefer, there's an MMO, which--assuming nothing glitches--is rigid behind the scenes. You can do only what the machine's been programmed to allow, and only how it's been programmed to allow it. It may be a very broad selection of options, but it's still strictly defined.

Neither of these extremes is preferable in a tabletop RPG. They're not where the game's strengths or purposes lie.

It's simply a question of where between those poles you choose to draw the line. That'll change player to player, and game to game. As it should. And it's certainly fertile ground for discussion. But I don't think anybody is advocating either extreme. Lots of people seem to be arguing against them, though.

 

[pemerton]

Double post.

 

[pemerton]

There are terrific games out there that illustrate how flexible rules, based on GM and player interpretations of free descriptors, can work. HeroWars/Quest, FATE, Marvel Heroic RP, and plenty of others. (4e skill challenges, especially post-DMG2, are another.)

But 5e isn't written as one of those games. (Which to my mind fits with what [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] says upthread, though he may not agree with the use to which I'm putting his remark.) For instance, if the game is meant to be about flexible adjudication in a free-flowing way, then why do fighters have a class ability that regulates the distance they can jump down to single feet? Why do we have rules about defeat in combat (reduced to 0 hp) that track unconsciousness, death, stabilisation, recovery etc in such pedantic detail?

4e suffered from this problem to an extent, at the divide between combat and non-combat resolution. But at least within each domain it was consistent: non-combat resolution (skill challenges) was free-flowing and descriptor driven (to the extent that the best advice for running skill challenges was found in HeroQuest revised, and Robin Laws' advice on how to run extended contests in that system); combat was fiddly, granular and pedantic. Only when the two blended into one another did the game start to feel a bit incoherent.

With 5e, I'm not getting the same sense of how the various elements of the system are meant to be used. Nor of how they fit together. I mean, if I (as GM) go all flexible and free-form on a fighter's Remarkable Athleticism, or a rogue's use of Cunning Action to hid, am I allowed, or expected, to do the same to a wizard's spell slots? To the damage dice and saving throw rules for a fireball? In which case what was the point of all the detail in the first place?