D&D 5E (2014) I for one hope we don't get "clarification" on many things.

[Uchawi]

Yes, but that ship has sailed along with everything else in 5E. So all you can do is reflect and scratch your head.

 

[giggles]

How much does the 5E PHB weigh?

 

[neonagash]

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. SNIP.

Theres an easy answer to these so called problems. You do what we've done for 20 years..... ask the new GM what to expect from the game instead of showing up full of expectations.

 

[JeffB]

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.

Thanks for not making me wade through 12 pages of arguments and typing up precisely how I feel.

 

[Manbearcat]

So you think Mearls is wrong because the ambiguous rules don't "let" the DM decide, they "make" him decide. Whereas clearer writing would "let" the DM decide. Is that right?

Maybe.

I think clearer, simpler wording that said "you need to be concealed, and if there's doubt make a Perception check (passive or active as appropriate to the perception rules)" would make it clear that fictional positioning is key. And the norm in D&D is that the GM resolves disputes over fictional positioning. (This wording would also allow modular variation, though - eg a group could use "plot points" that let a player declare the fictional positioning for a particular hiding effort.)

Whereas a whole lot of technical wording that is ambiguous I think creates a misleading impression of a bit of a mess that the GM has to sort out.

Precisely. If 5e just wants the GM to adjudicate if Stealth is legitimate and then roll something simple, then why the rules language that canvasses the intersection of multiple mechanical vectors (concealment/cover, line of sight/effect, passive perception, etc)? Presumably, with such engineering there is supposed to be a process of following a "if yes then < >, if no then < >, and so on" flow-chart in there somewhere.

If those rules intersections are irrelevant, if the engineering isn't about the adjudicative process following an if/then flow-chart, if in the end its just going to be a throwing up of the hands and "bloody hell...just figure it out yourself", then why all the "stealth stuff?" If we're looking for a lean, mechanical machine that is "fiction first", intuitive, puts the keys to the engine in the hands of GM discretion, and requires minimal handling time at the table, why isn't 5e looking toward something super simple like Dungeon World's basic resolution mechanic:

1) GM relays fictional positioning.

2) Player makes action declaration for a Stealth move.

3) GM decides if the fiction warrants something else happening before Steath can be made such as:

"These guards are on high alert and the passage you're transiting is fairly well lit and fairly low on stuff to sneak behind and obscure line of sight. You're going to need to figure out the patrol routes/frequency or come up with some kind of misdirection or something (eg Discern Realities or Defy Danger - Int - for the misdirection)".

4) Player can then make their action declaration for DR or DD (or something else if they've got a better idea and it fits).

5) Resolve that and lets find out what happens.

6) If the fiction that comes out of that dictates that things are still a go for Stealth, then have it. Resolve that move and lets find out what happens.

Done and done. All of these (a) intersecting, granular Stealth rules when (b) the designers say they've aimed towards low mental overhead and quick table handling time (and hopefully * intuitive action declaration for players such that they have requisite agency) while play is ultimately going to turn on (c) "forget all of these intersecting Stealth rules...GMs, its on you to make sense of things"? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Yes, I know it feels very AD&D and I guess that is good for nostalgia. Still doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


* Incoherent or unintutive rules, or rulings that must be made to manage their inadequacy or silence, are quite often prohibitive to intuitive action declarations by players.

 

[Juriel]

So you think Mearls is wrong because the ambiguous rules don't "let" the DM decide, they "make" him decide. Whereas clearer writing would "let" the DM decide.

That is damn well put.

Though rather than say Mearls is wrong, I'd say he is spouting bull manure to save face.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Maybe.

I think clearer, simpler wording that said "you need to be concealed, and if there's doubt make a Perception check (passive or active as appropriate to the perception rules)" would make it clear that fictional positioning is key. And the norm in D&D is that the GM resolves disputes over fictional positioning. (This wording would also allow modular variation, though - eg a group could use "plot points" that let a player declare the fictional positioning for a particular hiding effort.)

Whereas a whole lot of technical wording that is ambiguous I think creates a misleading impression of a bit of a mess that the GM has to sort out.

Am I making sense?

Not really. "Clear wording is better than unclear wording, and both can let the DM decide, and therefore Mearls is wrong when he says unclear wording lets the DM decide" isn't a cohesive argument, as I'm sure you can appreciate. If you aren't 100% behind the restatement I offered upthread, then I'm still confused.

 

[Campbell]

I honestly feel like we have become too obsessed with D&D. to the point where we can't see beyond ourselves. There are better ways to write rules. Vincent Baker has shown this. Onyx Path has shown this. If the intent is for me individual DMs/GMs/STs to make a judgement call say that. Don't make me parse out your intent. Tell me what you actually mean.

 

[sunshadow21]

It seems to me 5e DM judgment call rules like hiding mean the system is going to favour home groups to achieve consistency. Its not going to work very well in organised play if you are rotating DMs. That is a trade off I am personally glad was made, since I play home games almost exclusively, and I feel a bit of rules tinkering/interpretation around a table means you all get the game you want. Everyone wins.

Well ....Everyone except organised play players. I can see why it will annoy organised play players. With 5e, if you're going organised play, players will just have to accept that 5e comes with a degree of DM rulings which you wont be able to influence very much... and if that bothers you, or is important to your character, the answer is dont make a PC based around flexible rules such as hiding. Make another character which relies less on DM judgment calls.

It also hurts a lot of people who can't play in a regular home game for a variety of reasons and/or use the forums/email as their main method of playing. Relying on DM judgment in a forum based game for every little detail like 5E seems to be requiring would suck, and it will limit what is becoming a major environment for playing these games. So organized play is not the only thing hurt; it effects a lot of would be players.

And simply not using a mechanic because it it relies too much on DM judgment is not a valid answer, not for something as major as stealth mechanics which is going to come up in every group and every adventure at some point. It can work for a lot of things, but not something like that.

In the end, I have to fall on the side that rules first, with the caveat that the rules are to the point, clearly understood, and it's reasonably easy to see what changes could easily be made and what effects those changes would have. That gives both sides a starting point to work from. The DM can and should always go through before starting a campaign and figure out what, if any, changes need to be made for that specific campaign and group, and communicate that to the players to maintain the shared baseline. Someone up the thread a bit said it best when they said they wanted to play a different story each time, not a different game entirely. Players need to be able to have a fair bit of control over not only what options they have, but how likely those options are to succeed if those options are to mean anything. A vague "it's up to the DM to determine precisely how this is going to interact with the world" is not very solid ground for a player to be standing on.

I don't think this is necessarily bad, but it is an important and major limitation. The DMG is going to have be the absolute best book WotC has ever published in order for this system to have a chance to appeal to players (as opposed to DMs) long term. It's one of the biggest mistakes they made with 4E, and I am a bit surprised to see them making it again. Making DMs happy is important, but without players feeling engaged (and I never really got the impression that they were in 4E; sure, people had fun, but I don't recall seeing anyone who was just a player actively defending and supporting 4E, ever; it was always DMs or someone who played on both sides of the screen), it's just another system and once the new shine wears off, there are other systems out there that achieve being rules light and player friendly at the same time. No matter how strong the brand name is, it won't be easy for a DM wanting to run D&D to win that battle if the players just want to have fun and feel like they can find just as much fun or more with something else. Throw in the increased importance of organized play and playing over the internet to catch those not able to commit to a full time regular game, and the lack of clarification so many seek will end being a major limiter to the overall success of the system. People who have the interest, the time, and/or the local community to support a strong DM oriented system that relies heavily on consistently playing face to face with the same group is not all that large of a group, and it's probably getting smaller as the average age of the gamer reaches into adulthood.

If WotC is content to have made an updated version of the original game that will appeal to the same type of people it originally did, they have succeeded very well. Beyond that, though, they may have problems. If they were even remotely interested in winning over the 3.x/PF/OGL crowd, they haven't shown it yet. Even the 4E crowd seems a bit shaky. The DMG will be the telling point in whether or not they win over these crowds sufficiently to have reached their goal of being a unifying game that everyone can be happy playing. The response will probably also shape just how much clarification we get going forward. If it remains mostly the pre 3rd edition crowd, we'll likely see virtually none; it clearly has a level of support that WotC is happy with right now, and they aren't likely to jeopardize that to chase a group of players that probably wasn't on their radar much anyway. If they manage to get those that have splintered off more recently, more clarification will be needed to retain that particular crowd; that crowd is going to get tired of the whole "let the DM decide" approach, and if WotC wants to get and retain them, more clarification and codification will be required, and probably sooner rather than later.

 

[Mistwell]

Maybe.

I think clearer, simpler wording that said "you need to be concealed, and if there's doubt make a Perception check (passive or active as appropriate to the perception rules)" would make it clear that fictional positioning is key. And the norm in D&D is that the GM resolves disputes over fictional positioning. (This wording would also allow modular variation, though - eg a group could use "plot points" that let a player declare the fictional positioning for a particular hiding effort.)

Whereas a whole lot of technical wording that is ambiguous I think creates a misleading impression of a bit of a mess that the GM has to sort out.

Am I making sense?

It would be easier if you used clearer, simpler wording.

Any time you use the phrase, "fictional positioning" (and you used it three times in one paragraph), you are losing a chunk of your audience. It's unhelpful jargon.