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

[CM]

Ok, how many folks agreeing with the OP are 20+ year veteran DMs who have been to the rodeo a few times?

How many are new to DMing with 5th edition?

You might want to keep those folks in mind before complaining too loudly about clarifications. You are always free to ignore them. I'd at least like to see WotC acknowledge potential problems and offer one or more solutions.

 

[RSKennan]

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.

The player issue was caused, or at least exacerbated by the rules. I've frequently had players argue for the inclusion of their new book, saying that if I didn't allow X, Y, or Z, they would have wasted money.

We can't divorce the culture from the rules. The Rules shape the culture.

 

[RSKennan]

Ok, how many folks agreeing with the OP are 20+ year veteran DMs who have been to the rodeo a few times?

How many are new to DMing with 5th edition?

You might want to keep those folks in mind before complaining too loudly about clarifications. You are always free to ignore them. I'd at least like to see WotC acknowledge potential problems and offer one or more solutions.

I'd rather see a DM who doesn't know what to do ask for advice from other DMs. That way there is no sense that the ruling comes from on-high.

 

[Paraxis]

I'd rather see a DM who doesn't know what to do ask for advice from other DMs. That way there is no sense that the ruling comes from on-high.

What?!?

Why on earth would you want that? The rules of the the game do come from on high, the game designers, that is why we pay them money for the books, they have a job to do and that is to make clear, well balanced, good rules.

RAW is the LAW, rules before story, rules before the DM, rules before ALL.

DM fiat is a bad word, rule 0 should only be used sparingly when there is no printed rule to cover the situation.

This comes from an almost 30 year veteran DM who has played/ran every edition of the game, as well as many other game systems.

 

[occam]

Page 42 was only required due to scaling difficulties. Bounded accuracy means you only need to remember 10/15/20 (maybe 25/30 on the outside), and those DCs will work throughout the life of a character.

I don't think this is quite right. 5e PCs still scale - stat gains, proficiency bonuses, possible feats and items, etc - so a GM still needs advice on what sorts of DCs can be expected to support what sorts of diffciulty/pacing outcomes.

Yes, but it isn't the same as 4e, where a "hard" task required a DC 15 check at one level, and the same "hard" task would require a DC 25 check if the character attempting it were higher level. Difficulty for most things scaled with character gains, so you weren't actually getting any better overall. Unless, that is, you really focused in one area, in which case you could greatly outpace the gains of your companions and turn hard tasks easy, or unless you were dealing with one of the few instances where difficulty didn't inherently scale, as with falling.

With 5e, a "hard" task is DC 20. It's DC 20 at 1st level, and it's DC 20 at 20th level. The increases characters get as they level up reflect legitimate improvements in ability; things actually do get easier as you go up in level.

Page 42 also had damage, too, and presumably 5e GMs will want that sort of advice.

Good point. My guess is that this will be available as part of the monster construction guidelines.

 

[RSKennan]

What?!?

Why on earth would you want that? The rules of the the game do come from on high, the game designers, that is why we pay them money for the books, they have a job to do and that is to make clear, well balanced, good rules.

RAW is the LAW, rules before story, rules before the DM, rules before ALL.

DM fiat is a bad word, rule 0 should only be used sparingly when there is no printed rule to cover the situation.

This comes from an almost 30 year veteran DM who has played/ran every edition of the game, as well as many other game systems.

I can't tell how to read this post. If you're being sarcastic, though, it's awesome.

Edit: I just saw your sig. Good job.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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

It isn't just about Organized Play, however. The OP manager, Chris Tulach, isn't any better than answering these rules questions than anyone else is. He can ask R&D, but they'd be the ones who understand the rules well enough to decide what the rule intended and what the best rule should be.

In addition to that, if a concern is brought up in OP, you can be sure that concern has occurred to at least one(likely MANY) DMs who aren't in OP.

There are many DMs who would like to have a solid answer to their questions without having to make things up themselves.

Also, these concerns don't necessarily only affect OP, either. Say I'm a player that has recently lost their group and I go down to my local store and answer an ad posted on the wall asking for players. I join the group and I bring my character to the table and the DM says "Sorry, your character can't hide because I interpret this rule differently than your last DM" and that was the point of my character, I'm not going to enjoy that game. So, now my opinion of D&D is no longer "I love it!", it is instead "I'm not sure if I want to play this game as I'm not sure what I'm going to get when I sit down to play with other people."

The same thing can happen in one-off convention games, games organized over the internet, groups formed in stores, etc. Pretty much any time you have a player who might move from one group to another there is a possibility of a bad experience if the things they like about D&D aren't the same from game to game.

Now, I'm not saying remove all choice from the DM. Far from it. But when a rule exists, it should be clear and easy to follow. WOTC should release clarifications if a rule is ambiguous so that these incidents of the game not being the same from table to table don't occur simply due to misunderstandings. I understand that there will always be DMs out there who make their own house rules and say "I'm consciously changing this". That's fine. But when something is different from table to table simply because the wording of a sentence could be clearer, it doesn't help anyone.

 

[Incenjucar]

The player issue was caused, or at least exacerbated by the rules. I've frequently had players argue for the inclusion of their new book, saying that if I didn't allow X, Y, or Z, they would have wasted money.

We can't divorce the culture from the rules. The Rules shape the culture.

Right. Incoherent rules lead to an incoherent culture.

--

The "Organized Play" arguments are something of a strawman. Many DMs do their best to play by the rules as written in (disorganized?) play, and many DMs and players enjoy being able to have conversations about the game without having to list their group's house rules before the anything else starts.

There are also only so many people who actually go through every single mad lib left behind by designers BEFORE the game starts, which can turn a session into Calvin Ball. Not everyone likes not knowing what their character can do until it's time to roll the dice.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

You can blame the players all you want, but ultimately if they aren't having a good time, they won't play. DMs who don't listen to their players and who make their players unhappy don't have players, Rule 0 or no. Which is why DM-player relations need to be more subtle then just pounding Rule 0.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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."

Yeah ideally stealth and hiding would be clearer from the get go, its an important and central mechanic thats going to come up a lot, but I would still like a general dmg caveat about twaeking rules or using interpretations that suit your table, and giving some examples (eg heres a pro combat-hiding approach, heres an anti combat-hiding approach, and heres a middle ground.... )