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

[Charlaquin]

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.

I’d be quite interested to hear more about that, but if you don’t want to discuss it thats fair.

 

[Parmandur]

I found 4e a lot of fun to read.

Yeah, different strokes and all that. I also find the 5E books clear, so it's all relative?

 

[overgeeked]

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.

I think you’re reading way in to this. Having ambiguous rules isn’t a matter of supporting varied playstyles. Ambiguous rules leads to arguments. Having a good selection of optional rules is what supports varied playstyles. Having an easily hackable game leads to support for varied playstyles. You can have both well-written and unambiguous rules alongside support for varied playstyles.

 

[Parmandur]

I’d be quite interested to hear more about that, but if you don’t want to discuss it thats fair.

I mostly just don't want to risk derailing your conversation, but I'll just say that Sage Advice as originally conceived and executed as a Twitter jury may have been Mike Mearls brainchild, even if Crawford was given the task. When Mearls was out of the picture, the role changed pretty quickly.

 

[Mort]

I think you’re reading way in to this. Having ambiguous rules isn’t a matter of supporting varied playstyles. Ambiguous rules leads to arguments. Having a good selection of optional rules is what supports varied playstyles. Having an easily hackable game leads to support for varied playstyles. You can have both well-written and unambiguous rules alongside support for varied playstyles.

Yeah, On the Palladium boards I once saw a poster brag about how amazing the RIFTS rules were because they made DMs have to really hone their skills at houseruling.

He was not being satirical or facetious!

 

[Parmandur]

I think you’re reading way in to this. Having ambiguous rules isn’t a matter of supporting varied playstyles. Ambiguous rules leads to arguments. Having a good selection of optional rules is what supports varied playstyles. Having an easily hackable game leads to support for varied playstyles. You can have both well-written and unambiguous rules alongside support for varied playstyles.

The game is seven years old at this point, and middle schoolers are successfully getting into the game. The "rules arguments" that I see on the Internet (because I don't see anything more than a quick brush to read the rule again in person, compared to the nightmare that sprung up anytime someone attempted to grapple in 3.x, even though it came up often for our group) are about odd corner cases mainly, and easily resolved. I would say that 5E has succeeded in being clear, while still maintaining wiggle room for DMs to build their own game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I mostly just don't want to risk derailing your conversation, but I'll just say that Sage Advice as originally conceived and executed as a Twitter jury may have been Mike Mearls brainchild, even if Crawford was given the task. When Mearls was out of the picture, the role changed pretty quickly.

Heh... I wouldn't even necessarily say that, because Mike made no bones about it when he made his own comments on Twitter. He always said that this is how HE would do it in that instance, but that if you wanted "official" rules clarification, you'd need to ask Jeremy. He never claimed his choices were official or correct in any way, shape, or form.

He was actually doing people a service by making plain the fact that it should always be your own choice on how to make a ruling, not divining for some god-result from on high.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The thing is, balance is mostly illusory, but DMs often have an overblown fear of letting their players have cool toys because they think it will break the game. I can easily see a DM thinking they need to rule against BI adding to the check for Dispel, and then being shown that tweet, recognizing that the feature is meant to apply to any ability check, and relaxing about it.

I’ve seen that sort of thing play out several times with other rules in my own group, particularly with my DM who is really into playing games “as intended”.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mostly just don't want to risk derailing your conversation, but I'll just say that Sage Advice as originally conceived and executed as a Twitter jury may have been Mike Mearls brainchild, even if Crawford was given the task. When Mearls was out of the picture, the role changed pretty quickly.

That makes sense. Now that you mention it, it was around the same time Mearls stopped tweeting his own takes on rules questions that the tenor of Sage Advice Changed.

I remember at the time finding Mearls’ Tweeted rulings to be laughably bad and Crawford’s being the more reasonable. But it was nice to see that the two D&D leads ruled in different ways and served to reinforce the “rulings not rules” message. I almost wonder if that might have been intentional - have one designer give a ruling that sticks close to RAW and the other give a more out-there RAF take to reinforce the idea that the rules are meant to be flexible enough to allow both.

 

[Charlaquin]

The thing is, balance is mostly illusory, but DMs often have an overblown fear of letting their players have cool toys because they think it will break the game. I can easily see a DM thinking they need to rule against BI adding to the check for Dispel, and then being shown that tweet, recognizing that the feature is meant to apply to any ability check, and relaxing about it.

I agree, but I think that discussion of balance not needing to be as tight as a lot of DMs worry it does would have been far more valuable than the straight answer.