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

[tetrasodium]

I disagree. IMO it is a huge improvement, even as someone who loves 4e.

3.5s 800 individual types of attacks was a PITA that I couldn’t be paid to go back to.

5e's not doing much different except for not actually doing much to define some of them
melee attack
spell attack
ranged spell attack - More than once I've had to explain to newbies that these don't use dex
melee spell attack
ranged weapon attack
improvised weapon attack

@Parmandur a glossary is more clear than "natural language"

 

[Parmandur]

5e's not doing much different except for not actually doing much to define some of them
melee attack
spell attack
ranged spell attack - More than once I've had to explain to newbies that these don't use dex
melee spell attack
ranged weapon attack
improvised weapon attack

@Parmandur a glossary is more clear than "natural language"

...

Really?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My response would have been that the rules should have been a lot lighter if that was their design goal. Like, Whitehack levels of light.

Why?

If you sit at my table and have Shield Master, you can use your bonus action to swing your shield first when your attack.

Oh come now, the RAW and RAI was clear before the ruling on that one. It’s a sensible houserule, balance wise, but it was always a houserule and always clearly counter to the wording of it and most other similar actions.

5e's not doing much different except for not actually doing much to define some of them
melee attack
spell attack
ranged spell attack - More than once I've had to explain to newbies that these don't use dex
melee spell attack
ranged weapon attack
improvised weapon attack

@Parmandur a glossary is more clear than "natural language"

There is no need to define those very simple terms. If the text refers to a melee attack, then it refers to any melee attack. If it refers to melee weapon attack it requires a weapon.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

There is no need to define those very simple terms. If the text refers to a melee attack, then it refers to any melee attack. If it refers to melee weapon attack it requires a weapon.

Um, I'm not seeing what the common thread is between my post, GlassJaw's, and tetrasodium's, that you'd reply to all three of us at once.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Um, I'm not seeing what the common thread is between my post, GlassJaw's, and tetrasodium's, that you'd reply to all three of us at once.

Why would there be a “common thread”? I’m not going to make three posts when my response are fairly short.

I’ve never in my life seen someone respond with confusion to multiquoting.

 

[Oofta]

There’s a vast universe of a gulf between “write for clarity” and “produced with perfection from day one.” Humans are imperfect beasts who will never reach perfection in anything, except perhaps needless cruelty. I don’t expect perfection. Errata happens. Writers and editors miss things. Mistakes happen. I do expect the writers of game rules to understand that rulebooks for games are first and foremost technical documents whose primary goal is clarity and precision in the transmission of clear an unambiguous game rules. That’s not expecting perfection, that’s expecting they understand the job they have.

Rules as a technical document was one of the things they went out of their way to avoid. First, it never really works. The more detailed rules you have, the more exceptions you have, the more exceptions and clarifications you have the more you need. It's a never ending rabbit hole.

The other thing is that geek speak is a huge barrier to a lot of people. Some of the previous editions were full of it, and it raised a pretty high perceived barrier to entry. The rules are far from perfect, but writing them as a technical manual would have only made it worse. That, and we'd still find problems.

 

[Parmandur]

Rules as a technical document was one of the things they went out of their way to avoid. First, it never really works. The more detailed rules you have, the more exceptions you have, the more exceptions and clarifications you have the more you need. It's a never ending rabbit hole.

The other thing is that geek speak is a huge barrier to a lot of people. Some of the previous editions were full of it, and it raised a pretty high perceived barrier to entry. The rules are far from perfect, but writing them as a technical manual would have only made it worse. That, and we'd still find problems.

I can't comprehend seeing anything to do with "touch attack" somehow being more clear than plain English.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Why would there be a “common thread”? I’m not going to make three posts when my response are fairly short.

I’ve never in my life seen someone respond with confusion to multiquoting.

I initially only saw your reply to tetrasodium, and assumed you were replying to all three of us in the same paragraph. I don't know if it was there all along and I just didn't notice, if you edited it in at some point, or if there was a problem with my browser. Sorry.

Now that I've actually seen what you were saying to me:

Why?

The less moving parts there are in the rules, and the more clearly defined what the functions of each of those parts are and how they relate to each other; the easier it is to change the rules or add new subsystems to the rules to suit your preferences without worrying about accidentally affecting other parts of the game in ways that you did not intend.

I'm thinking of the OSR ethos of "rulings not rules", and thinking of how a lot of OSR games that aren't just straight-up B/X clones tend towards very streamlined rules design. Thinking of The Black Hack, Knave, Into the Odd, Mork Borg, and Whitehack like I already mentioned. Tiny Dungeon and Quest are also coming to mind, but I don't think those are OSR.

Point being, if you want to encourage a culture of hacking and modifying the rules and thus not seeing the RAW and RAI as sacrosanct, having simpler and lighter rules in general would help with that; conversely, having a lot of complex rules would detract from that design goal.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I initially only saw your reply to tetrasodium, and assumed you were replying to all three of us in the same paragraph. I don't know if it was there all along and I just didn't notice, if you edited it in at some point, or if there was a problem with my browser. Sorry.

Now that I've actually seen what you were saying to me:

The less moving parts there are in the rules, and the more clearly defined what the functions of each of those parts are and how they relate to each other; the easier it is to change the rules or add new subsystems to the rules to suit your preferences without worrying about accidentally affecting other parts of the game in ways that you did not intend.

I'm thinking of the OSR ethos of "rulings not rules", and thinking of how a lot of OSR games that aren't just straight-up B/X clones tend towards very streamlined rules design. Thinking of The Black Hack, Knave, Into the Odd, Mork Borg, and Whitehack like I already mentioned. Tiny Dungeon and Quest are also coming to mind, but I don't think those are OSR.

Point being, if you want to encourage a culture of hacking and modifying the rules and thus not seeing the RAW and RAI as sacrosanct, having simpler and lighter rules in general would help with that; conversely, having a lot of complex rules would detract from that design goal.

I think that you’re presenting a false dichotomy, here.

S

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It strikes me, @Charlaquin that another aspect might be that Crawford has mentally pivoted towards 6E as the solution to repeat questions at this point, as it is probably closer now to the end than the beginning of the edition. I recall from one interview he did with Greg Tito that Crawford is actually keeping a running document of clarifications needed in the event of a 6E based on all the questions that he gets. I don't expect that a new edition would be a radical transformation, but a synthesis of the thesis : antithesis of the 5E core rules : audience response is probably warranted at some point.

I strongly suspect that this is correct, including your guess re: 6E, assuming by "audience response" you're including reactions to various systems, not just stuff in need of clarification. I do hope they also look at other RPGs and developments in design generally too. WWN's "System Strain" is a great mechanic that's more straightforward than Hit Dice and achieves the same goal and more elegantly, for example.

I think that you’re presenting a false dichotomy, here.

I can see why you might feel that way, but I think all available evidence suggests he's basically correct.

Looking particularly at the last decade or so, it seems very much like games with fairly simple, well-defined rules, preferably with a clear purpose to the rules (which may well be explained), are much better for hacking/modifying etc. and produce more, and better-quality material of that kind. This is especially true if you look at the relative audience sizes.

You could look further back to d20, but I feel like that supports his contention too, and that could be a very lengthy and potentially contentious discussion.

The other thing is that geek speak is a huge barrier to a lot of people. Some of the previous editions were full of it, and it raised a pretty high perceived barrier to entry. The rules are far from perfect, but writing them as a technical manual would have only made it worse. That, and we'd still find problems.

True though I think you have to balance the two to achieve a game that is both readily comprehensible and that doesn't present a barrier to entry. Also I think that for people under about 40, "geek speak" is way less of a barrier, not in a "they're all nerds" way or "kids are smarter" way or whatever, just that jargon has become such a larger part of just living your life over the last 40 years (and is still going that way), and that games, phones, etc. require a minimum level of ability to deal with jargon (as does a lot of social media, Twitch, TikTok, etc.). So you can go a little harder with "geek speak" now than you could in say, 2000.