This doesn't seem consistent with my experience: I saw many threads here and in other forums about what the rules actually meant, and people pestering Crawford on twitter for trying to discern the intent through the natural language... If it was clean and easy to use natural language, these threads would be very few. Same with people argueing about dictionary definitions. I don't think the problem disappeared, I just think it moved from "threads about technical definition and rule lawyering" to "threads about dictionnary and designer's intent".
And did you see the designers clarify things ? No, for two obvious reasons:
- They keep to the spirit of the game as designed, which is to leave these decisions to the DMs.
- They don't feel that they need to provide more, as these pestering ruleslawyers don't prevent the game from being extremely successful (so why change things).
(with regarding to the GM having to provide advance notice on rulings pertaining to characters abilities)
Why being so defensive?
Where is the defensivity here ? YOu are making a totally unsustained claim, I ask to see proof, which, by the way, you still have not provided. So I consider myself vindicated.
Knowing what happens when he casts fireball is akin to knowing what happens when a guy in real life walks down a flight of stairs or when a car mechanics repairs a car: it's using a common ability. Of course, one could die when walking on stairs (thousands, maybe millions, of people die this way each year [12,000 in the US alone]) and by the rule, the GM is totally empowered not to have said beforehand that he'll be asking for Acrobatics check to use stairs. You're right that the no rules written in the book forces the GM to provide advance notification on his rulings about characters abilities. I relied on a "natural language" use of the word "must"
Perfect then.
However, I amend it by saying that "not providing advance notifications on rulings pertaining to characters' well known abilities to interact with the world, such as walking down stairs or the effect of a known spell they routinely cast or, for martial, rulings on how to deal with underwater fights in an underwater campaign, being precised that the three examples here are just example and the reasoning should be examined without leaning on disproving any of these three particular illustrations, will lead to the player thinking his GM is bad because, since the only thing he controls is his character, he'll need to know what the character knows about his abilities in order to engage the world".
If it was the case, it would indeed be a problem, but it's not what is happening here. The player asking about this is not asking at all about his relationship to the world, he is only concerned as to which option will make his character technically more powerful. In most cases, he probably doesn't even want to engage with the world, just add to his DPR.
The idea that you describe your actions (storytelling) makes it necessary that you know your abilities to avoid making silly decisions, and that can't be known beforehand without the GM being explicit on this in session 0. For a character in the game world, jumping from the 3rd floor on the saddle of a horse and fleeing has an expected result. There is a part of randomness and risk, but they vary around a median point. In swashbuckling stories, it's a standard move, that might fail, of course, but will more often than not end up in the daring escape of the heroes. In the real world, or in a gritty campaign, the expected result might be a severely injured horse. Which will be applicable to your character? Of course, you should ask your GM.
There you go, no problem. BUt you know that, in general, it's sufficient for the DM to tell you "this is going to be a heroic campaign, feel free to try anything heroic" or "this is going to be a blood and steel campaign, don't try anything not "realistic" as it will fail". For me, it's enough to get a feel about what to try or not.
Wanting more details about all the potential edge cases that will in all likelihood not even happen in the campaign is just wasting time that could be used playing. And after that, why don't you just trust your DM?
The reason is simple, because these people are not concerned about the game world or their actions, but just whether this will combo with another ability for more power so that they can repeat it time and time again.
But in order for genre emulation to be possible, and for the player to decide on a course of action, the player needs to know what his character abilities are. If I want to play a character modeled after a Muskeeter or Zorro, I'd jump and expect to have to make a reasonable DC acrobatic check, the specific number left to determine to the GM . If the GM answers: "let's calculate your fallling damage, then the falling object damage sustained by the horse, oh, he's dead, so there is no point, really, in rolling Acrobatics to know if you can ride him without a penalty on the next round", it would be fine by the rules of the game, but then I wouldn't have jumped in the first place if I knew it was totally outside the character's (and horse's) possibility.
How about, when it happens, just ask whether it's a reasonnable course of action or if you're taking risks ? Why do you feel the need to know that, in advance, at session 0 ?
Again, no need except to plan a build for more power.
And without advance notice, there is no way for the player to decide on his course of action. A character won't know if he will succeed, but he'll generally know if something is possible in-universe and generally if it's "hard" or "manageable", much like we know we can cross a small road on foot and be generally safe but we wouldn't do that on a highway. If I was expecting to play a swashbuckling hero, that the concept wasn't vetoed, and yet all the rulings during this campaign were unsupportive of this playstyle, I'd feel "betrayed" -- this is too strong a word but I am just echoing what was said before, personnaly I'd just be slightly displeased -- by the GM: if he had been explicit about his rulings, I'd have seen the campaign was much more realistic and probably envisioned another character, more fitting to the shared story. If a player think Acrobatics is used to climb up falling stones like Legolas in the Hobbit, he'll envision a nimble character very differently than if he's told beforehand that Acrobatics is to the splits. This has very little to do with "technical character building" but everything with "storytelling", which mean having a character able to take part in the story.
The problem is that, in my experience, it loops. Because his players are powergamers, the DM is extremely careful about allowing something a bit "extra" to a character because he knows that, once he opens the door, he will have all the players rushing in to repeat the feat and take advantage of it with further combos. Vicious Circle.
I, on the other hand, with the types of players that I have, have absolutely zero hesitation in letting them try and often succeed, because I know that it will never come back to hit me in the face by players trying to abuse the ruling. Virtuous Circle, I actually let them make the rulings, and they will self-limit it ot the specific circumstances.
Letting player know in advance what their character knows about the world they live in (ie, giving advance notice on ruling on character's powers and abilities) is the way to do that. Of course, there is a middle ground, where the GM will offer the possibility to retract his action "are you sure you're casting a frost ball in the middle of the library? The books will all burn as they are flammable and your character knows that his frost ball put things on fire?" but it's often too late for the player to retroactively choose another spell to learn at level 3, not because he wanted more power (both will do 8d6 damage), but because he wanted to play a "nice" character who avoided collateral damage and wouldn't have taken fireball in the first place if he had known substituting damage type wouldn't solve that spell's problem in urban environment.
Do you really have players that make that choice because of danger in an urban environment ? Honestly ?
Because the only people that I've seen taking that feat were actually (to link to another thread) to avoid being stuck with fire damage because of monster resistances that they have all read through in the MM...
And the halfling sorceress in my Avernus Campaign, when, once in Avernus, she realised that devils were indeed immune to fire and that most of her spells would be useless (and had to wait a few levels in hell without it). And that is a player who knew that, from the name of the campaign, she would be going to hell, but still she took fire spells for the first few levels because it fit her idea of the character. But when she took the feat, she certainly did not ask me about other effects to the environment.
It has nothing to do with powerbuiding but simply to allow decision making by the player and imagining characters that fit in the story, "sword and sorcery" isn't enough of a qualifier to ensure that GM and all the players have the same fantasy world in their mind.
Honestly ? Because, once more, all the people that I've seen asking this question on forums were powergamers complaining that the DM had not done what they expected and were obviously entitled to, and that the DM was by default a bad DM.
