D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Tony Vargas]

I have only been talking about changes to the rules. When there are gaps in the rules that requires a ruling to close that gap. That's a rules change.

It's a ruling, not a change. The next time something falls into that 'gap,' another ruling is required, it might be the same ruling, or at least consistent with the last one - or not, because it's not a rule change or house-rule, but a ruling, on the spot, applying only to that one instance.

5e's 'rulings not rules' paradigm shields the player from complexity, the game from bloat, and the DM from rules lawyers. 5e depends upon the flexibility of DM rulings for playability.

No. People, including you, have demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of what I am saying.

Lack of understanding and disagreement are two different things.

They prove it over and over again by posting responses arguing that I am talking about following the rules. I'm not. I'm talking about the thousands and thousands of gaps in the rules.

You're approaching a ruleset that isn't meant to be played 'RAW' as if it were meant to be played RAW, and judging it harshly when it needs to be 'fixed.' Don't think of rulings as fixes or changes to the system, think of them as lubricant, or even fuel. The game doesn't function without them, but adding them doesn't change what it is, just allows it to run.

 

[dave2008]

I disagree. Intent has nothing to do with it. Only the results matter. Should the pass be too close to the basket, it will be goal tending regardless of intent.

Thank god! I now have resolution and no longer have to follow this analogy. Though I very much respect your logic and thoughtful commentary; you have clearly demonstrated you don't know what your talking about. We can put this one to rest. Thank you.

They aren't rulings that require changes to the rules like I have been stating are house rules. I have explicitly been discussing rulings that change the rules. The kind that are needed to close gaps in the rules. No gap of any kind is closed when the DM is deciding on swinging from a chandelier. The rules cover the whole attempt.

OH MY GOD! 2 for 2! I'm done! I'm done. I'M DONE! You've changed the goal post, I no longer have to carry on with this thread! I am as content my undestanding as I am sure you are of yours and never shall the meet. We are done! Thank you again for your time and the discussion.

 

[SkidAce]

I just wanted to say, I tried to continue reading this thread because there is a tiny bit of something worth pursuing....but I give up.

 

[Hussar]

You're confused. Stating the results of an action is not a ruling, rule or adjudication. Following the rules and not allowing a check is also not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed here are alterations to the rules. Those times when the rule fails to say what to do in a situation and the DM needs to make a decision on how to alter the rule in order to close the gap in the rules.



Since the rules do not allow the DM to do that, changing the rules in order to allow the DM to grant a greater result is a house rule.

Not true. A higher athletics score allows me to jump further. A higher stealth score makes me harder to see. So, no, not a house rule, simply an adjudication.

Sure its possible to narrate anything. But to me denying the drow elf the knowledge that she should have based on her background seems like a more severe invalidation of her choice to be a drow elf from this particular city.



Sure I would have different results even if their (adjusted) roll was the same. Let me sharpen the example: instead of wading through the stream, suppose the PCs are trying to jump across a 5 foot stream with 2 foot high rocks sticking out the stream. Two PCs both have an (adjusted) result of 10. One of the PCs has 16 Str, and the other has 6 Str. I would let the 16 Str PC clear the obstacle, while the 6 Str PC would not. Would you rule that they both succeed (or fail) the same?

Assuming the DC is 10? They both clear, no problem. Why wouldn't they? They both succeeded on their roll. If the DC is 11 or more, they both fail. Again, why not, why would one succeed and one fail?

If they were attacking something with an AC of 10, would you adjust who hit and who missed? What's the difference?

/edit - Just read the later responses and I didn't know about the "clearing an obstacle" clause. Interesting. So, fair enough. Separate results based on stats with the same DC. Note, that's a pretty specific example though. Most of the time, skills don't work like that. Remove the bits sticking up, and they both clear the stream exactly the same.

 

[Hussar]

No. People, including you, have demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of what I am saying. They prove it over and over again by posting responses arguing that I am talking about following the rules. I'm not. I'm talking about the thousands and thousands of gaps in the rules.



That's impossible. They can only ever cover a finite variety of circumstances. If you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself.

Heh. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], when multiple people are demonstrating a distinct lack of understanding what you are saying, that means you are not explaining yourself clearly enough, or you aren't actually saying what you think are saying. It's very, very unlikely that multiple people will fail to get your point when your point is clear.

 

[S'mon]

deleted

 

[bmcdaniel]

Not true. A higher athletics score allows me to jump further. A higher stealth score makes me harder to see. So, no, not a house rule, simply an adjudication.

Actually, not quite right. RAW, long jump distance is a purely a function of Strength score, and Athletics proficiency has nothing to do with it.

Assuming the DC is 10? They both clear, no problem. Why wouldn't they? They both succeeded on their roll. If the DC is 11 or more, they both fail. Again, why not, why would one succeed and one fail?

If they were attacking something with an AC of 10, would you adjust who hit and who missed? What's the difference?

/edit - Just read the later responses and I didn't know about the "clearing an obstacle" clause. Interesting. So, fair enough. Separate results based on stats with the same DC. Note, that's a pretty specific example though. Most of the time, skills don't work like that. Remove the bits sticking up, and they both clear the stream exactly the same.

While they would both clear the stream (because it is fairly narrow), it isn't "exactly the same." The 16 Strength PC can make a 16 foot long jump, while the 6 Strength PC can only make a 6 foot long jump. (Again, RAW.)

In any event, whether or not it is good design, there is ample precedent in the Player's Handbook for there to be different results for different PCs even hitting the same DC. To continue my example above, even if PCs make the same DCs, I would give different amounts or types of information resulting from an Intelligence (History) check based on their PC's raw intelligence score, race, age, background or general backstory. While I don't think the rules compel the DM to do so, it seems to me to be natural, sensible and well within the DM's discretion.

 

[Maxperson]

Let's dive into this simple statement. How can you change a rule that didn't yet exist? That's called creating rules, not changing rules. At best you are home brewing there.

You aren't. You are changing rules that do exist, but have gaps that need filling. You are not creating a new rule from scratch Instead, you are modifying the existing rule to now include your new ruling.

 

[Maxperson]

You're approaching a ruleset that isn't meant to be played 'RAW' as if it were meant to be played RAW, and judging it harshly when it needs to be 'fixed.' Don't think of rulings as fixes or changes to the system, think of them as lubricant, or even fuel. The game doesn't function without them, but adding them doesn't change what it is, just allows it to run.

I'm not judging 5e at all. I'm clarifying what makes a house rule. I personally house rule the heck out of any and every system I get my hands on. Those thousands of gaps exist in every system. No RPG system that I've see or heard of works perfectly without that "lubricant" you mentioned.

 

[Maxperson]

Not true. A higher athletics score allows me to jump further. A higher stealth score makes me harder to see. So, no, not a house rule, simply an adjudication.

This has nothing to do with what I said. You're responding to something else.