D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[overgeeked]

Game books are toys meant to facilitate fun. That might not always be aided by overly technical language.

Where does the fun come from? Playing the game. How do we know how to play the game? By reading the rules. It’s a lot easier to learn how to play a game by reading well-written rules.

For example, the matter of combat and long rests could be cleared up with the simple inclusion of a colon. I don’t think that qualifies as “overly technical language”.

 

[Mort]

Where does the fun come from? Playing the game. How do we know how to play the game? By reading the rules. It’s a lot easier to learn how to play a game by reading well-written rules.

For example, the matter of combat and long rests could be cleared up with the simple inclusion of a colon. I don’t think that qualifies as “overly technical language”.

I'm fairly sure that, like much of 5e the the tone of the writing (natural language etc.) was partly due to (over)correction from 4e.

4e books were written in a technical (some would say dry) manner to facilitate comprehension - I liked it, many people did not.

 

[Parmandur]

Where does the fun come from? Playing the game. How do we know how to play the game? By reading the rules. It’s a lot easier to learn how to play a game by reading well-written rules.

For example, the matter of combat and long rests could be cleared up with the simple inclusion of a colon. I don’t think that qualifies as “overly technical language”.

The rules in 5E are pretty clear, though. Even the examples in this thread are mostly Crawford re-stating what I would say is pretty clear in the rules originally.

 

[Charlaquin]

I suspect the differing tone is probably a direct result of some of the challenges I see in response. When everything you say is parsed, relativized and twisted to a corkscrew. It’s ever likely he gives these people less ammo.

Let’s take for instance this recent item...

View attachment 136151

I don’t see how posts like this are anything but good for the game. I dispute the argument that Sage Advice tends to minimize player abilities. I actually find it pretty balanced. It also often does offer explanation for why he has made a call. It just tends to curb the worst excesses. I’m also struggling to see why anyone would follow @Charlaquin ’s advice to ignore this ruling, when it makes a lot of sense.

I find it a mystery. Not to mention a pretty confrontational approach to a designer clarifying how they see the game.

[That post was the most recent one, just in case people think I’m cherry picking.]

I mean, I agree with JC on that ruling. I just didn’t need to read it to reach that conclusion. And frankly, neither did B. Dave Walters. From his tweet, it sounds like he already knew how he wanted it to work and was fishing for validation. I think that goes against the spirit of Sage Advice and of 5e. He should have just worked it out with his own group instead of trying to appeal to JC’s authority.

If JC had gone into why the intent is for Bardic Inspiration to be so generous and what a DM looking to rule differently might want to consider, that would be valuable insight. I don’t blame him for not doing so, especially on Twitter, but the lack of insight makes his answer... Not particularly useful in my opinion.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm fairly sure that, like much of 5e the the tone of the writing (natural language etc.) was partly due to (over)correction from 4e.

4e books were written in a technical (some would say dry) manner to facilitate comprehension - I liked it, many people did not.

The 4E books were written in a technically correct manner...the best form of being correct.

They also looked good, but really, really didn't check any of those other boxes. It's hard to care about playing a game when reading the rules isn't fun.

 

[overgeeked]

The rules in 5E are pretty clear, though. Even the examples in this thread are mostly Crawford re-stating what I would say is pretty clear in the rules originally.

That there is a wide variety of readings and questions suggests the rules could have been written much, much better, i.e. clearer.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, I agree with JC on that ruling. I just didn’t need to read it to reach that conclusion. And frankly, neither did B. Dave Walters. From his tweet, it sounds like he already knew how he wanted it to work and was fishing for validation. I think that goes against the spirit of Sage Advice and of 5e. He should have just worked it out with his own group instead of trying to appeal to JC’s authority.

If JC had gone into why the intent is for Bardic Inspiration to be so generous and what a DM looking to rule differently might want to consider, that would be valuable insight. I don’t blame him for not doing so, especially on Twitter, but the lack of insight makes his answer... Not particularly useful in my opinion.

I would say that the grind of answering these questions has broken him down. Honestly, a lot of his answers at this point are to just restate the 5E text and remind people that 3.x assumptions do not apply. Or reminders to just do whatever is fun.

Another factor is that the Sage Advise model seemed to majorly shift around the same time as a major personnel shift at the head of the D&D team, though I don't really want to get into that.

 

[Parmandur]

That there is a wide variety of readings and questions suggests the rules could have been written much, much better, i.e. clearer.

Not necessarily. Multivaliance can be a strength, particularly in a game where DIY is baked into the DNA. That the same rulebook can facilitate opposite play styles is one of the major successes of 5E.

 

[Mort]

The 4E books were written in a technically correct manner...the best form of being correct.

They also looked good, but really, really didn't check any of those other boxes. It's hard to care about playing a game when reading the rules isn't fun.

True.

The 4e magic items were easily the most boring of any edition.

Which is weird because the presentation of the artifacts was really, really good - the mechanic of the artifact growing or lessening in attunement depending on the acts of the user was awesome (The Eye of Vecna literally ripping itself out and leaving if it got pissed off enough at the user had me both on the floor laughing AND really wanting to get it into a campaign). If only they could have presented the rest of the items like that!

 

[Charlaquin]

The 4E books were written in a technically correct manner...the best form of being correct.

They also looked good, but really, really didn't check any of those other boxes. It's hard to care about playing a game when reading the rules isn't fun.

I found 4e a lot of fun to read.