D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Maxperson]

So then the appellation 'house rule' is so broad as to be meaningless?

How is, "A rule that only applies to your house." meaningless? If you can explain to me how a rule you make up applies to me over at my house, I will concede that it is not a house rule.

Pardon me for saying so, but it appears to me that you're using 'houserules' as a way to dismiss criticism of your position. The rules clearly allow for DM interpretation. A 'houserule' is usually something that changes a rule, not that interprets a rule within the guidelines of the rule itself.

Each and every ruling changes a rule. You establish a way to run it that differs from the printed rules and that doesn't apply to the house of anyone other than you. That's a distinctive change.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How is, "A rule that only applies to your house." meaningless? If you can explain to me how a rule you make up applies to me over at my house, I will concede that it is not a house rule.

Because, since the rules require DM adjudication in many(most) cases, labeling adjudication 'houserules' debases the term to the point of meaninglessness. If you call every DM call within the rules a 'houserule', then there's no word left that's useful for 'DM has added or completely changes a rule to fit his game.' It's so broad that it's useless.

Each and every ruling changes a rule. You establish a way to run it that differs from the printed rules and that doesn't apply to the house of anyone other than you. That's a distinctive change.

No, it doesn't. If I rule at the table that the rogue can attempt to hide in the fog because he's 'not clearly seen,' I've changed no rules. The rule for hiding remains 'not clearly seen.' I'm not only within RAW, I'm within RAI. That cannot be termed a houserule without making the entire game just a set of houserules.

Similarly, if I choose to set DCs for skill checks where I like them as DM, that's also within the RAW because the book says I can do that. Further, it's within RAI, as there are examples of exactly the things we're talking about in official adventures. Calling that a houserule makes houserule as a term effectively useless for discussion because now every DM call within RAW and RAI becomes a 'houserule' at which point you dismiss it's validity. You've cheapened the term to the point that it's now your defense for any challenge of your position.

 

[S'mon]

Why? Just because the rules don't allow it, doesn't mean you can't house rule it in.

Between the Rule and the House Rule, there is the Adjudication. Most of what happens in a D&D game is not covered by the rules, and requires the DM to use common sense & judiciousness, combined with an appropriate sense of genre norms.

 

[dave2008]

If something is not explicitly allowed by the rules, it is disallowed.

This an assumption by you, note a trait of games, D&D, and D&D 5e in particular. For instance, the rules did not explicitly allow the alley-oop in basket ball, but the shot and points are not disallowed. In D&D the rules do not explicitly allow you to jump on a chandelier, swing across a room while slashing at enemies, and jumping off the other site. But that doesn't meant this action is disallowed by the game or the "rules of the game." T

 

[Maxperson]

Because, since the rules require DM adjudication in many(most) cases, labeling adjudication 'houserules' debases the term to the point of meaninglessness. If you call every DM call within the rules a 'houserule', then there's no word left that's useful for 'DM has added or completely changes a rule to fit his game.' It's so broad that it's useless.

Rules created through rulings are no more or less valid than rules created independently. There is no need to differentiate between them.

No, it doesn't. If I rule at the table that the rogue can attempt to hide in the fog because he's 'not clearly seen,' I've changed no rules.

Yes you have, unless it's a one time thing where the next time there is fog you rule differently. If it's repeatable, it's a rule for your table that may not be the same for mine.

The rule for hiding remains 'not clearly seen.' I'm not only within RAW, I'm within RAI. That cannot be termed a houserule without making the entire game just a set of houserules.

The rule is now modified to include exactly how to treat fog for your table, making it a different rule than the one at my table.

 

[Maxperson]

Between the Rule and the House Rule, there is the Adjudication. Most of what happens in a D&D game is not covered by the rules, and requires the DM to use common sense & judiciousness, combined with an appropriate sense of genre norms.

I disagree. Most things are covered by the rules. It's the outlying cases that need adjudication. There is also zero need to differentiate adjudication and house rule. One is not more valid than the other and both result in new rules.

 

[Maxperson]

This an assumption by you, note a trait of games, D&D, and D&D 5e in particular. For instance, the rules did not explicitly allow the alley-oop in basket ball, but the shot and points are not disallowed. In D&D the rules do not explicitly allow you to jump on a chandelier, swing across a room while slashing at enemies, and jumping off the other site. But that doesn't meant this action is disallowed by the game or the "rules of the game." T

The rules do specifically allow an alley-oop. The passing rules allow the pass and the dunking rules allow the dunk. Those rules used in conjunction are simply called an alley-oop. It's not a separate act. The D&D rules also specifically allow you to jump on a chandelier. It's an improvised action and the improvised action rules are specifically designed with things like that in mind.

 

[dave2008]

The rules do specifically allow an alley-oop. The passing rules allow the pass and the dunking rules allow the dunk. Those rules used in conjunction are simply called an alley-oop. It's not a separate act. The D&D rules also specifically allow you to jump on a chandelier. It's an improvised action and the improvised action rules are specifically designed with things like that in mind.

But the alley-oop is also offensive goal tending.

An an improvised action is not explicit, unless it is explicitly provided as an example in the book, so by your definition most improvised actions should be disallowed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Rules created through rulings are no more or less valid than rules created independently. There is no need to differentiate between them.


Yes you have, unless it's a one time thing where the next time there is fog you rule differently. If it's repeatable, it's a rule for your table that may not be the same for mine.

The rule is now modified to include exactly how to treat fog for your table, making it a different rule than the one at my table.

Right, so it's impossible to play just by the rules, because the rules require "houserules." That term is now so overbroad that it emcompasses the necessary actions to play the game at any and all tables. You've defined the discussion in a way that everyone's playing by the rules. Make a call at the table on hiding, houserule. Allow everyone +3000 hammers of all the loot dropping!1!, houserules. Play a completely different game and insist it's D&D, houserules.

 

[Maxperson]

But the alley-oop is also offensive goal tending.

It's not. They play done properly is a pass to a player in mid jump and the ball isn't going into the basket. No goal tending.

An an improvised action is not explicit, unless it is explicitly provided as an example in the book, so by your definition most improvised actions should be disallowed.

The improvised actions rules are explicitly for actions not covered elsewhere, which includes swinging off of a chandelier. The swinging from a chandelier is not an example of a hole in the rules requiring a ruling.