D&D 5E Why are vague rules praised?

[seebs]

Some thought about it: Individually, I prefer clear rules. As a whole system, I prefer a much more rules-light system. So on any given thing, I like having the rule, but when I have a whole system of rules that's detailed enough to be reasonably stable, I find two things:

1. I don't actually have a more definite answer that much more of the time.
2. I am spending a lot more time looking stuff up because I can't actually remember all the rules.

Furthermore, definite rules often give bad answers. Rules-as-written PF, you can use Astral Projection to cheaply manufacture ridiculous amounts of wealth, etcetera, etcetera.

So 5e's much simpler system with plain-language rules avoids all sorts of problems. (Example: In Pathfinder, sleeping characters are not unconscious. No, really.)

 

[rjfTrebor]

because the fun of dnd is actually unrelated to the direct wording of the rules.

it's a fantasy adventure game, not a competition to remember the most rules citations. play the game, make up dumb characters, try to enjoy yourself.

 

[Agamon]

So 5e's much simpler system with plain-language rules avoids all sorts of problems. (Example: In Pathfinder, sleeping characters are not unconscious. No, really.)

Exactly. There will never be enough clarity for everyone, no matter how specific and detailed the rules are.

That said, people run the game differently, thus the reason some people prefer plain-language to to text book language. Some would rather it to be like M:tG, where the rule is law and nothing needs to be interpreted. But some would rather have the DM run the game and make rules interpretations as the game goes. Neither is wrong, it's just a play style.

 

[Celebrim]

Misperceptions, probably grounded in poor play experiences where a problem was had and the wrong thing was blamed.

 

[Derren]

Having clear rules doesn't mean rules heavy. You already have rules so why not make them clear instead of vague? And if you do not want rules, why make them instead of suggestions and advice?

Example: Instead of a carousing table which tells you nothing a short paragraph about what can happen during carousing (romance, arrest, etc.) and what influence that can have in the game. For example what usual punishments for unorderly conduct are, how punishment can usually be avoided, that fame makes arrest more unlikely and possible benefits of being arrested. Much better than just saying 1-10 pay a fine or get arrested.

 

[was]

..Flexibility and customization. They give general guidelines on how to run the game. The idea is to rely on the DM's good judgement steered along by these general guidelines. The DM knows the players, their preferred game style and the uniqueness of the campaign better than the designers.
..Building binding absolutes, in regards to the rules to the game, are not that feasible because they seldom adequately cover every possible situation that arises during play. Attempting to do so, as seen in previous editions, results in massive confusion, irritating errata and constant futile attempts to update the material as new issues arise.

 

[Celtavian]

Having clear rules doesn't mean rules heavy. You already have rules so why not make them clear instead of vague? And if you do not want rules, why make them instead of suggestions and advice?

Example: Instead of a carousing table which tells you nothing a short paragraph about what can happen during carousing (romance, arrest, etc.) and what influence that can have in the game. For example what usual punishments for unorderly conduct are, how punishment can usually be avoided, that fame makes arrest more unlikely and possible benefits of being arrested. Much better than just saying 1-10 pay a fine or get arrested.

In my experience, it usually does mean rules heavy. In a game with clear rules, the designers usually attempt to provide rules for as many types of interactions as possible rather than leaving it up to a DM to determine according to circumstance. That rules design process generally leads to a rules heavy game.

 

[JamesonCourage]

In my experience, it usually does mean rules heavy.

I agree with you, though it doesn't have to be that way at all. I have a four-page RPG system that I'll likely be using to run a long term campaign with. As I wrote it myself, the rules are very clear. They're broad, but they are in no way vague.

Contrast this to my two current campaigns I'm running (one 4e, and one another RPG, clocking in at about 250 pages). Those are "rules heavy." Both are pretty clear on rules, too, though (especially my RPG).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Having clear rules doesn't mean rules heavy. You already have rules so why not make them clear instead of vague? And if you do not want rules, why make them instead of suggestions and advice?

B/X has very clear rules and they are not heavy. There are also many things which the rules do not cover. To keep a game from becoming too heavy the rules either need to cover less or be less proscriptive.

 

[seebs]

Clarification tends to mean either you add more words describing things (which makes you more rules-heavy in effect), or you try to add structures and formalizations, which tend to have the effect of making the system more rules-heavy as you deal with the interactions between all the systems.

Basically, having played every D&D, and plenty of other games, I have not in general found that "clearer" systems are necessarily actually any clearer as to "what do I actually do to resolve this question". And I also note that 5e's looser style creates an expectation that you'll be looking for rulings on things, and thus less of an inclination to have endless arguments about them.