Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="discosoc" data-source="post: 6797417" data-attributes="member: 6801554">Obviously no complicated ruleset is going to be without room for interpretation.&nbsp; That's why we have judges and stuff.&nbsp; Even Magic The Gathering has to clarify card rulings from time to time, and until the ruling is &quot;official&quot; the judges have to make a call.&nbsp; I brought 40k up specifically because several of my players also play that (I used to, but not for a few years).&nbsp; Yes, there's room for interpretation -- especially when dealing with terrain, measurements, or facing -- but the rules themselves are rarely unclear.&nbsp; And when there are unclear or poorly-worded rules, it's nearly always possible to pull up an official FAQ or errata.With 5e, there are very few &quot;official&quot; answers for questions, outside of clarifying actual misprints or trying to make a wording clearer.&nbsp; Instead, the closest we get is communication from the writers on how they would personally handle the rule and maybe mention if that's different from how the rule was intended.&nbsp; And in nearly every case, it's prefaced with &quot;it's up to the GM, but...&quot;.Now, I'm OK with that, and actually I really like how they are handling it.&nbsp; Pathfinder, for example, just got to be too much over the years because the rules were like a hyrdra.&nbsp; They'd clarify one thing and break two others.&nbsp; I just find that not every player is quickly on board with the &quot;it's up to the GM&quot; thing, possibly because they're used to games where players are against each other.&nbsp; The player I've had the most problem with would get frustrated with me when I'd make a rules call knowing full well that it probably wasn't the most accurate one, but it was the one that would keep the pacing fun for the time being until I had a chance to sit down and think it over later on.&nbsp; He was completely ready to argue the point, leaving me in a position of either giving into him for the sake of not causing drama at the table at the expense of letting players be the GM, or argue with him until he finally realizes that being a GM is way more than just getting all the rules right.&nbsp; Every time we went through that, it got better after a few minutes, but it's definitely an attitude I've seen with other people over the years -- typically 40k or MtG players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="discosoc, post: 6797417, member: 6801554"] Obviously no complicated ruleset is going to be without room for interpretation. That's why we have judges and stuff. Even Magic The Gathering has to clarify card rulings from time to time, and until the ruling is "official" the judges have to make a call. I brought 40k up specifically because several of my players also play that (I used to, but not for a few years). Yes, there's room for interpretation -- especially when dealing with terrain, measurements, or facing -- but the rules themselves are rarely unclear. And when there are unclear or poorly-worded rules, it's nearly always possible to pull up an official FAQ or errata. With 5e, there are very few "official" answers for questions, outside of clarifying actual misprints or trying to make a wording clearer. Instead, the closest we get is communication from the writers on how they would personally handle the rule and maybe mention if that's different from how the rule was intended. And in nearly every case, it's prefaced with "it's up to the GM, but...". Now, I'm OK with that, and actually I really like how they are handling it. Pathfinder, for example, just got to be too much over the years because the rules were like a hyrdra. They'd clarify one thing and break two others. I just find that not every player is quickly on board with the "it's up to the GM" thing, possibly because they're used to games where players are against each other. The player I've had the most problem with would get frustrated with me when I'd make a rules call knowing full well that it probably wasn't the most accurate one, but it was the one that would keep the pacing fun for the time being until I had a chance to sit down and think it over later on. He was completely ready to argue the point, leaving me in a position of either giving into him for the sake of not causing drama at the table at the expense of letting players be the GM, or argue with him until he finally realizes that being a GM is way more than just getting all the rules right. Every time we went through that, it got better after a few minutes, but it's definitely an attitude I've seen with other people over the years -- typically 40k or MtG players. [/QUOTE]

Verification