D&D 5E Why are vague rules praised?

[Nebulous]

Tracking weather and that much detailed passage of time is something I never really cared for doing. I love the Idea, and the ambiance it brings, but i doubt my players would notice much. Seems like extra work for minimal payoff. I guess I used to track months and seasons in Realms time. Long long ago. Now I just wouldn't bother. It's cold and raining. Moving on....

 

[wedgeski]

Tracking weather and that much detailed passage of time is something I never really cared for doing. I love the Idea, and the ambiance it brings, but i doubt my players would notice much. Seems like extra work for minimal payoff. I guess I used to track months and seasons in Realms time. Long long ago. Now I just wouldn't bother. It's cold and raining. Moving on....

I've actually gone the other way. I feel like my players appreciate knowing that the weather is procedural...just one of those many things that seems to encourage them to think of the campaign as a living system.

 

[Incenjucar]

* Nostalgia. D&D has always been riddled with vague, confusing rules and argument-inducing language, and since that is how it was, for those affected by nostalgia, that is how it must be for them to feel comfortable.

* Psychology of empowerment. There is a subset of DMs that have an easier time feeling in control of the game if they HAVE to make rulings about the game. I'm not qualified to describe why that is, but it's a rather visible personality trait.

It's a strictly psychological benefit for a portion of the audience. The rule vagueness may be the deciding factor that allows some people to really enjoy the game, just as it keeps other people from giving it the time of day.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

To me it's a matter of being able to adapt rules to the specific situation. Over the last 2 editions my players have REALLY gotten used to the idea that the rules are set in stone, the DM isn't allowed to change them.

If a spell says "does 2d4 points of damage to a target creature" and a DM ruled that you could use it on a door, at least one of our players would get very angry. The rules say "target creature" and the DM was breaking the rules by ruling it worked on objects.

If the rules said "opening a door is a minor action" and the DM said "I'm going to say that if you are trying to do that with your hands full it will take your standard action for this round" SOMEONE would complain about how the DM was out to get them and wasn't following the rules properly.

Really strictly written rules get people into the mindset that the rules cover EVERYTHING and that anything the rules don't cover simply isn't allowed.

One time I decided to make up an NPC on the fly with about 10 seconds worth of notice. So, I made up an AC and some hitpoints and a bonus to hit and started combat. When the PCs found out his AC through trial and error one of them started doing the math and figured out that his AC was wrong by 1 point since I had guessed rather than calculated it. I tried to tell them that it was just a bonus from his skill. They asked me exactly what feat he had that provided that bonus and which book and page number it was on so they could look it up. When I eventually relented and said "I just made up his AC, it wasn't based on any rules at all. I just picked an AC that sounded like it would be challenging to you." Then the group said "Well, in that case, I hit it last round because its AC was one lower!" I tried to explain that even though I made it up, I didn't regret it and its AC was going to stay the same and I certainly wasn't going back multiple rounds to retroactively apply damage. My players were not happy about that. The rules were the rules and they needed to be followed precisely.

I prefer rules to be written a little bit more vaguely to allow for DM interpretations. I like them to be more vague to encourages players to be in a mindset of the rules being there to help imagine the story but the story determines the rules rather than the other way around.

 

[Hussar]

Then you should read the OP's posts again.
The alternative to vague rules are not only heavy rules but also suggestions.
For example no table for carousing with entries like

"01–10
You are jailed for 1d4 days at the end of the
downtime period on charges of disorderly
conduct and disturbing the peace. You can pay
a fine of 10 gp to avoid jail time, or you can try
to resist arrest"

Instead, you have a list of possible events during carousing with a suggestions how to handle it.

"Arrest:
Punishment for disorderly conduct tends to be light. Depending on the size of the town or city punishments can include a short jail time (1d4 days) in a dungeon, public shaming or light beating. Sometimes the guards will resolve the situation directly with violent but nonlethal means which counts as punishment and no further actions will be taken. It is generally possible to escape punishment by paying money, either as fine or bribe (around 10gp). High fame (generally indicated by level or visible exploits) protects against being arrested for minor infractions.
Jail time usually involves being locked into a community cell with poor heating and food (Only long stays of several weeks should have an impact on the PCs health. See the table of diseases for ideas). Other races might choose different cell designs to account for racial abilities (for example teleportation, etc.). In jail, the fame of a character should indicate if he is harassed by the guards or if some of his possessions are stolen. It is possible to meet contacts from the local underworld in jail, but usually the influential members are not put into community cells which is reserved for small crimes.

Well, there are several issues here though. Throughout 4e people endlessly bitched that WOTC was trying to tell people how to run their game. What if I'm not running a Rennaisance era game? Prisons of the type you are talking about rarely existed in the Middle ages and you were almost never "jailed" for drunken behaviour. Stocks, public shaming, that sort of thing. But a building with cells? Naw, that wasn't something you saw all that much outside of certain areas. It was virtually unheard of for prisoners to be forced to remain in jail and were often let out to beg and share their take with their jailors. Small crimes would almost never result in jail time.

But, now, you have "official" rules that say that if I get into a drunken bar fight I'm going to get tossed in prison for d4 days? Isn't that something that DM's should decide for themselves?

I guess my question is, how much hand holding do you expect from the DMG? And again, considering the vitriol that we saw over the past four or five years when WOTC actually made the mistake of trying to do the sort of thing you're asking for, do you really expect them to do it this time around?

 

[Hussar]

To me it's a matter of being able to adapt rules to the specific situation. Over the last 2 editions my players have REALLY gotten used to the idea that the rules are set in stone, the DM isn't allowed to change them.

If a spell says "does 2d4 points of damage to a target creature" and a DM ruled that you could use it on a door, at least one of our players would get very angry. The rules say "target creature" and the DM was breaking the rules by ruling it worked on objects.

If the rules said "opening a door is a minor action" and the DM said "I'm going to say that if you are trying to do that with your hands full it will take your standard action for this round" SOMEONE would complain about how the DM was out to get them and wasn't following the rules properly.

Really strictly written rules get people into the mindset that the rules cover EVERYTHING and that anything the rules don't cover simply isn't allowed.

One time I decided to make up an NPC on the fly with about 10 seconds worth of notice. So, I made up an AC and some hitpoints and a bonus to hit and started combat. When the PCs found out his AC through trial and error one of them started doing the math and figured out that his AC was wrong by 1 point since I had guessed rather than calculated it. I tried to tell them that it was just a bonus from his skill. They asked me exactly what feat he had that provided that bonus and which book and page number it was on so they could look it up. When I eventually relented and said "I just made up his AC, it wasn't based on any rules at all. I just picked an AC that sounded like it would be challenging to you." Then the group said "Well, in that case, I hit it last round because its AC was one lower!" I tried to explain that even though I made it up, I didn't regret it and its AC was going to stay the same and I certainly wasn't going back multiple rounds to retroactively apply damage. My players were not happy about that. The rules were the rules and they needed to be followed precisely.

I prefer rules to be written a little bit more vaguely to allow for DM interpretations. I like them to be more vague to encourages players to be in a mindset of the rules being there to help imagine the story but the story determines the rules rather than the other way around.

Good grief. Why do you play with people like this? Wow. 4e must have blown their minds.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Good grief. Why do you play with people like this? Wow. 4e must have blown their minds.

Not really. They really loved 4e for the most part because it's rules were extremely clear and written in a way that encouraged even less interpretation than 3.5e. I try to DM in the way that makes the most sense given the rules at hand. In 4e, my DMing style became even more rules based than it was in 3.5e because the rules were even more codified and I had to make rulings less often.

My players adapted accordingly. Monsters in 4e were designed using different rules than the ones in 3.5e. That's fine, new rules. My players don't much care WHAT the rules are as long as they are followed precisely.

Although, now that I think about it, the primary player who caused all the problems in that example with the made up AC HATED 4e with a passion and refused to play it..ever.

 

[Celtavian]

Then you should read the OP's posts again.
The alternative to vague rules are not only heavy rules but also suggestions.
For example no table for carousing with entries like

"01–10
You are jailed for 1d4 days at the end of the
downtime period on charges of disorderly
conduct and disturbing the peace. You can pay
a fine of 10 gp to avoid jail time, or you can try
to resist arrest"

Instead, you have a list of possible events during carousing with a suggestions how to handle it.

"Arrest:
Punishment for disorderly conduct tends to be light. Depending on the size of the town or city punishments can include a short jail time (1d4 days) in a dungeon, public shaming or light beating. Sometimes the guards will resolve the situation directly with violent but nonlethal means which counts as punishment and no further actions will be taken. It is generally possible to escape punishment by paying money, either as fine or bribe (around 10gp). High fame (generally indicated by level or visible exploits) protects against being arrested for minor infractions.
Jail time usually involves being locked into a community cell with poor heating and food (Only long stays of several weeks should have an impact on the PCs health. See the table of diseases for ideas). Other races might choose different cell designs to account for racial abilities (for example teleportation, etc.). In jail, the fame of a character should indicate if he is harassed by the guards or if some of his possessions are stolen. It is possible to meet contacts from the local underworld in jail, but usually the influential members are not put into community cells which is reserved for small crimes.

Much of the DM's guide is optional.

I re-read your post. Didn't change my opinion at all. The example of a vague rule you used was very poor. The Carousing rules are optional. The table is a suggestion or guideline. You should know that and adapt it as you see fit. Complaining about an optional rule left intentionally vague due to being optional and concerning a wide array of possibilities is not a good example to support your original claim.

 

[Rhenny]

To tell the truth, for me, as a DM, it is boring when the rules tell you everything. Also, it forces you as DM to know every single one of them in order to run the game "properly." It becomes a huge burden.

 

[Eric V]

Some vagueness is great, like some of the background benefits one gets are described in pure roleplaying form, with no mechanics really mentioned. I think the results of the carousing table fall here, actually. Something happens, and then you hash out the nitty-gritty with the DM.

Some vagueness is awful, like not knowing if your monk benefits from bracers of armor. IMO, purely math-based stuff should not be vague at all.

Some vagueness is a bit of both, like the stealth rules, or when to use perception vs. investigation.