firm rulings

[nswanson27]

The difference is that if I make a ruling on whether you can or can't pick up a disarmed weapon, that has no lasting consequence beyond the session - when you sit down to Bob's session next week, it will all work fine.

If I give you out a whole load of extra treasure then that does persist beyond the session, potentially skewing the results in all future games. And if I divert from the plot, especially in the current season, then I've potentially just derailed the over-arching story of the season.

I don't see how the fact that it's contained within a given session solves the problem. A smaller problem, granted, but it's still a problem.
Besides, you could have multiple DMs do this, which would go across sessions.
Or in the case of a close fight, if the DM rules on the spot, "No, I won't allow to pick up the weapon (surprise!), and no I won't allow you to redo your turn because you thought you could - you've already rolled the dice." ...and this causes your death, that would be a "lasting consequence" to say the least. (and yes, there ARE DM's that would do this to players)

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

The closest thing you will get to firm rulings is to write to Jeremy Crawford and hope it gets answered in a Sage Advice column. But even then it will not be an absolute, since AL leadership says they encourage DMs to use Jeremy's rulings, but they are not required to be used by any DM unless the ruling also makes it into official errata. That being said, I feel that most DMs that know about his rulings do use some or all of them.

 

[Pauper]

I used to think that there would be some value in assembling a set of 'recommended rulings' in order to have AL DMs who were inclined to do so to have a common set of rulings to address.

The problem with that idea is that, unless the project is actually performed by an admin or at least given their official blessing, such 'recommended rulings' would be no more official than Sage Advice, and at that point why not just use Sage Advice?

--
Pauper

 

[nswanson27]

The closest thing you will get to firm rulings is to write to Jeremy Crawford and hope it gets answered in a Sage Advice column. But even then it will not be an absolute, since AL leadership says they encourage DMs to use Jeremy's rulings, but they are not required to be used by any DM unless the ruling also makes it into official errata. That being said, I feel that most DMs that know about his rulings do use some or all of them.

That's my observation as well. I'm not meaning paint DMs in general with a mean brush. But you make a good point - I guess what I do want to see is this making it into the errata, and nip this (and any similar) problems in the butt.

 

[nswanson27]

I used to think that there would be some value in assembling a set of 'recommended rulings' in order to have AL DMs who were inclined to do so to have a common set of rulings to address.

The problem with that idea is that, unless the project is actually performed by an admin or at least given their official blessing, such 'recommended rulings' would be no more official than Sage Advice, and at that point why not just use Sage Advice?

--
Pauper

Totally agree. Maybe one thing they could do in addition is, if a DM plans to rule against such "recommended ruling", they need to advertise that up front as people are signing up for their table. This way the players have a chance to steer clear if they want to. Otherwise, the DM is tacitly assumed to adhere to them.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Totally agree. Maybe one thing they could do in addition is, if a DM plans to rule against such "recommended ruling", they need to advertise that up front as people are signing up for their table. This way the players have a chance to steer clear if they want to. Otherwise, the DM is tacitly assumed to adhere to them.

No. If I DM, I don't want to have to worry about trying to keep track of a million different tweets and FAQs across a gazillion sites. Wizards put out a player handbook and a DM guide. It should be written well enough that I can make rulings from there without wastimg more of my game time trying to track down some obscure ruling. If they didn't write it well enough. ...well, that was kind of their job, not mine, and that's a whole other problem. It's hard enough to DM without being expected to have a doctorate in Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[nswanson27]

No. If I DM, I don't want to have to worry about trying to keep track of a million different tweets and FAQs across a gazillion sites. Wizards put out a player handbook and a DM guide. It should be written well enough that I can make rulings from there without wastimg more of my game time trying to track down some obscure ruling. If they didn't write it well enough. ...well, that was kind of their job, not mine, and that's a whole other problem. It's hard enough to DM without being expected to have a doctorate in Dungeons and Dragons.

Not saying it would have to be every single one. Just a small subset of the ones that cause problems mid-way through an adventure, like what's been discussed. I don't think this would be a burden to DM's to look it over once and say yay or nay. It would be easier on everyone (including the DM) if such issues were addressed prior to signup.

 

[Anthraxus]

Totally agree. Maybe one thing they could do in addition is, if a DM plans to rule against such "recommended ruling", they need to advertise that up front as people are signing up for their table. This way the players have a chance to steer clear if they want to. Otherwise, the DM is tacitly assumed to adhere to them.

I wouldn't really want to discuss which of the Sage Advice/Recommended rulings I do or don't follow before a game, and the inevitable discussion of "why not?" before a game. We are enabled to decide on ambiguous rulings at the table, and I'm all for it. If a player doesn't like the way I rule something, then they are free to play at a different table next time, if they wish, sure.

 

[nswanson27]

I wouldn't really want to discuss which of the Sage Advice/Recommended rulings I do or don't follow before a game, and the inevitable discussion of "why not?" before a game. We are enabled to decide on ambiguous rulings at the table, and I'm all for it.

It's better than getting "why not?" in the middle of the game, which is disruptive for everyone at the wrong time. You can ask them to just go with the ruling and stop arguing, but that doesn't mean they're going to (not that I think that they should argue either, but there are always going to be those kind of players...). This just addresses it up front before it becomes a problem.

If a player doesn't like the way I rule something, then they are free to play at a different table next time, if they wish, sure.

I'm sure that goes without saying.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Not saying it would have to be every single one. Just a small subset of the ones that cause problems mid-way through an adventure, like what's been discussed. I don't think this would be a burden to DM's to look it over once and say yay or nay. It would be easier on everyone (including the DM) if such issues were addressed prior to signup.

The piling on and piling on of meta knowledge is what I object to. It goes against everything 5e was designed for, streamlined ease of rulings at the table and DM empowerment. I play a PFS druid, and the amount of knowledge outside Core I found I was expected to know about animal companions was annoying. Books I had never heard of and didn't own, changes to what was in the Core, and a gazillion FAQ questions to wade through to find the info on it that I needed, on a website I don't normally visit. It made everything a million times more complicated than it needed to be.