Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8387891" data-attributes="member: 7032025">The natural language is not perfect, but in the case of your groups, demonstrably much better than the jargon of 3e/PF. And honestly, I don't se more fights these days than I saw in the 3e days, these days the fights are mostly rehashing the same silly small problems.In general, DMs are not crazy, you know. Most people are internally consistent, it's just that sometimes you don't see the consistency because your own is based on different parameters and different values, or because there are facts that you are not aware of.So when a DM seems inconsistent to you, it's not because he is inconsistent on purpose. The most probable explanation is that he might simply have forgotten a previous ruling, or simply made a different one because, for him, the circumstances are different. And the thing is that, there is no obligation for him to explain why the circumstances are different, as it might be something your character does not know.So I think it's good that you did not find a requirement for the DM to be consistent in his decisions from everyone's point of view, because it would prevent the DM to do what he needs to do, which is to tell you exactly (and this is what the rules say, by the way) what happens as a consequence of your actions. He is not obligated to do more by the rules. Sometimes, he may do more if he feels that an explanation is warranted.But the main principle is for the players to trust that he is not crazy, and therefore he is consistent, and that the rulings that he is doing is for the fun of the table. And in the end, this is what bugs me the most in this discussion, the fact that somehow the DM who provides the game for the fun of the players, has to sit at the place of the accused if he dares make a ruling that does not seem consistent to the players.Again, it might be everyone's preference at the table that the DM always is transparent and openly consistent and writes everything down. But it's not a requirement of the game, there are other ways of playing which involve trusting your DM because there are things that you don't know.Finally, another point that severely bugs me with this rules-based approach, is that if a consistency is needed, it's not that of the rules, it's that of the world. It's the DM's job to create a world and have the adventurers in it. If the world is consistent, it's the best place to be. After that, what 5e tells you is that, just like theories in physics, rules are just tools to try to understand the world, but the world exists on its own, he does not obey the rules just as the physics theories are just approximation of the way the universe behaves.So consistency of the world comes first, and the rules are a far second in terms of objectives.First, as I've mentioned before, the rulings are not there because of the natural language. I had 20 pages of rulings in 3e when there was no natural language being used. The rulings are due to edge cases simply not covered by the rules. Now, it's certain that 5e is a much less complete system than 3e/PF/4e ever where, and it was part of its intent when designed, the rationale being that there will always be edge cases anyway, and as it's not possible to cover them all, the system might as well enable the DM to cover them when necessary without burdening the players with an uncontrollable number of rules, rendering the game unplayable (just as 3e ended up being).So there might be more edge cases that need to be covered from your perspective, but it's not the case from ours, there are actually fewer edge cases because the system is less complex. For example, as we are using mostly Theater of the Mind, or at worst gridless maps, we have no rules for grids and therefore no rules for edge cases on grids.As for the players, they should not be there to ask about rules (remember, that, again, in the designers's words, you don't need to read all the rules to get the best experience of the game), they are there to describe their actions, and hear what happens from the DM.So of course, they can ask for precisions, or even estimation of danger or appropriateness of what they are doing, in their character's view. But pestering the DM will not make the game run better, for once,  and second, once more, the explanation might simply be "you don't know, maybe something has changed, but this is the way it happens". And this is not inconsistency, it's just the universe not being described by a few simple rules.Unless otherwise stated, they should function as in the rulebook, with the experience that the character has. Now, if he has never used them before, how would the character know how they would function ? So asking question about current abilities is fine, asking questions about abilities to be had in a few levels should wait until the character reaches that level, if he survives until then, otherwise it's just a loss of time. Who knows what might happen until then anyway ?In general, I don't think that would be the cause for a lot of questions. After that, the circumstances might be very different from one case to the next. The DM being consistent with his view of the world will provide the answer, why should he spend time explaining all possible cases of these and their consequences ? Why should he make rulings in advance for all possible situations, when it's not even possible to imagine ll of them ? And what would you expect there, for "jumping on a horse or hanging from a chandelier" ?First, it has not been 15 years, but that's a detail. As for the spell, it does exactly what it says on the description. I have participated to a number of threads on the subject, with the people always forgetting half the sentences in the description and focusing only on the other half because it does not suit them. But briefly, it's magic (so it has to be more than a persuasion check), and it's level 2 (so it has to be less powerful than a dominate). After that, I'm not interested in examining all the possible suggestions spells that could be cast, it's pointless and undoable anyway. So I'll wait until a player (and it has happened many times in our campaigns, it's a fantastic intrigue and roleplaying spell) casts it, and then:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If the player has phrased it like a simple persuasion, it will be extra strong and I will roleplay the target accordingly</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it's according to the description (and there is an example), it will work as indicated</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it's an attempt to abuse it by making something unreasonable (and you have examples provided), or more in line with a much higher level spell like dominate, it will just fizzle and not work.</li> </ul>And that's it, like any other magic in the book. I've spelled it out for you, but never had to for any of the players at our tables or when I used it. It went smoothly, with no abuse and was great fun. Why complicate this with rulings in advance. Just wait until someone casts it and allow it or not depending on what it is, based on its own merit and on the rules.The problem with this one is not about the wording, it's the fact that people think that it's really powerful. But then it's a feat, it's optional, and if you think it's too strong, just don't allow it. But as written, I am not aware that there is a problem surprise is fairly well described, it's stealth and perception that people have trouble with, once more because they usually read only part of the rules and cling to one sentence above all else to try and make a point.I actually does, in general, case in point, the two examples above. If people did not try to abuse suggestion by turning it into a dominate, no one would have a problem with that spell, at worst it would be weak and not used. Same with the alert feat, because it's powerful. It's powergaming that creates these problems with the rules, not the rules themselves.The book tells you everything as long as you are properly reading it, including the level of the spell, the fact that it's magical, etc.If I may, the best solution is NOT to make a general ruling, but just to tell your players that the spell works as written, but if they try to abuse it, it will automatically fail (just like any other spell). With that forewarning, it's up to them to be reasonable in the use of the spell. And the nice thing is that it's consistent through the world, because as long as they have not tried a specific use, there is no reason for them to understand exactly how it works. And even if they have tried a similar use, but with slightly different circumstances, it is still no guarantee that it will work. No set of rules will EVER take into account all these case, it's only the consistency of world, as provided by the DM's rulings, that can account for it.</blockquote>

Verification