D&D 5E Why are vague rules praised?

[Sadrik]

I would like to put this out there, this is a very astute look at rule making. There is no set of rules that will get what we need. It is naive to think that any set of rules can cover every possible situation or loophole. Further, a wise person knows how to bend rules for the right reasons.

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_using_our_practical_wisdom

 

[Greg Benage]

Clear rules are always better than ambiguous ones, but many times principles or guidelines (requiring DM judgment to adjudicate) are better than comprehensive rules or mechanical systemization. Sometimes people look at principles or guidelines for adjudicating certain game situations and interpret them as ambiguous rules.

 

[Korgul79]

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.

I see mainly 3 reason for this.
1.Because most of this exceptions are setting-dependent, not rules-dependent.
2.Because it's not possible to make rules so extensive and precise to cover all the consequence of being arrested, so it's better to just declare the bare minimum fact and let circumstances and good sense to take care of details.
(By the way, the table accounts in some way for the effect of fame and power. You add your level, which is quite reasonably linked to your fame, to the result, so the more powerful you are the less likely you are being arrested. I find it quite elegant.)
2.Because the main purpose of the table is to provide inspiration to play. If you find out that your pg is about to being arrested and you would avoid it, what would you find more fun? To play out the event, trying to escape, to bribe the guard, to use your influence, contact and eloquence, or to have a complex mathematical formula that gives you the outcome after accounting for your wealth, level, and the square root of the number of acquaintances your character has plus 3 times the number of his friends?


Alas, I must add that a rule left intentionally vague is different for a poorly worded one (as the puzzling bit about the castle construction without supervision). But errors happen.

 

[Meliath1742]

Having played since 1982 I'm am burned out with rules that have gotten more and more specific and that try to address every conceivable situation. I'm tired of being a librarian that constantly has to stop the game to look up that rarely used rule...because everyone at the table expects the GM to literally "know it all". I'm tired of having to defend my decision because it doesn't follow the letter of the rule according to the lawyer(s) in the game. I welcome 5E with open arms because it is needed to keep my love for this game alive! Hooray for "vagueness" and GM empowerment!

 

[Dausuul]

As I've said elsewhere, there is a distinction to make here between rules that are open-ended and rules that are unclear.

An open-ended rule is one which intentionally leaves details to the DM's judgement, to allow for situations more complex and nuanced than written rules can handle in a practical way. For example, the fireball spell says it ignites flammable objects, but doesn't say how to determine whether an object is flammable, or what exactly the effects of being ignited are. The DM is expected to take care of those details when they come up. That's an example of a rule which is clear but open-ended.

An unclear rule is one which appears to have a definite intent in mind, but is written in such a way that one can't be sure what the intent is. For example, the evoker's Empowered Evocation ability says, "You can add your Intelligence modifier to the damage roll of any wizard evocation spell you cast." It's not clear how that is supposed to apply to spells like magic missile (do you get +Int damage to each missile? to just one missile? for each target of the spell?). This is not a question you'd expect to adjudicate in play each time it comes up. It's not situational, either--any time you use magic missile, the issue will arise. This is an example of an unclear rule.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't think the defense of any individual vague rule comes from a desire for vague rules. Even when going rules light, rules should be clear, concise, and work as intended, though it's okay if they require some adjudication.

The defense of a vague rule happens as a defense against codification. The stronghold rule is a good example. The rule itself is poorly worded when you think about it. But the intent is clear. Thus the rule as it's written is defended because altering it at this point requires errata, which is obnoxious, and risks unnecessary codification.

There is also a clear desire among some for the rules to be left as they are, without errata, forever. For this to happen, it must be left to individual DMs to clarify any unclear or poorly written rules.

Personally, I think it's exactly the kind of rule that deserves errata, because clarifying the language to match the obvious intent simply helps people who buy the newer printings. But I understand not wanting to open the flood gates on errata.

 

[Meliath1742]

I don't think the defense of any individual vague rule comes from a desire for vague rules. Even when going rules light, rules should be clear, concise, and work as intended, though it's okay if they require some adjudication.

The defense of a vague rule happens as a defense against codification. The stronghold rule is a good example. The rule itself is poorly worded when you think about it. But the intent is clear. Thus the rule as it's written is defended because altering it at this point requires errata, which is obnoxious, and risks unnecessary codification.

There is also a clear desire among some for the rules to be left as they are, without errata, forever. For this to happen, it must be left to individual DMs to clarify any unclear or poorly written rules.

Personally, I think it's exactly the kind of rule that deserves errata, because clarifying the language to match the obvious intent simply helps people who buy the newer printings. But I understand not wanting to open the flood gates on errata.

Very well put. I like rules that allow the freedom of the GM's input to clarify our even interpret when situations arise that are not addressed in the rule description. I have grown tired of constantly diving into the books to look something up because the rule has grown overtime in an attempt to address every situation. Make the rule simple and clear...when a situation comes up that isn't specifically addressed (they always do) it is the GM who makes the ruling. Get on with the game!

 

[Parmandur]

When playing 5e, we have grappled things. There were no arguments about how that worked, and nobody has had to look through the combat rules. Common sense and rulings trump overly elaborate and specific rules.

 

[Meliath1742]

When playing 5e, we have grappled things. There were no arguments about how that worked, and nobody has had to look through the combat rules. Common sense and rulings trump overly elaborate and specific rules.

Yeah baby ;-)

 

[Hussar]

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.

Hang on though. The carousing table is perfectly clear though. It's not very detailed, but, there's no misconceptions about what happens when you roll something. The castle building rules have clarity issues, obviously, if you read the thread about it, and I think Barkskin has some issues, but, I'm not sure what else isn't clear.