D&D 5E Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XV: The FINAL ROUND)

[CleverNickName]

Because for some people, the 'conversation' is 'I wear the daddy pants, shut up and do what I say'.

This is so weird to me. I can't imagine taking that point of view, no matter which side of the DM screen I'm sitting on. My friends and I don't treat each other that way. Heck, I haven't even seen perfect strangers treat each other that way at the game table.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, or can't happen...I'm just saying it's a really freaking weird point of view.

 

[Gradine]

Because for some people, the 'conversation' is 'I wear the daddy pants, shut up and do what I say'.

That's not a conversation at all; it's a fiefdom, and it's explicitly not the intended way to play the game even in the "rulings not rules" era.

"Bad actors will exploit it therefore it's bad" is not, has never been, and will never be a particularly compelling argument against the thing in question.

 

[Mind of tempest]

This is so weird to me. I can't imagine taking that point of view, no matter which side of the DM screen I'm sitting on. My friends and I don't treat each other that way. Heck, I haven't even seen perfect strangers treat each other that way at the game table.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, or can't happen...I'm just saying it's a really freaking weird point of view.

strange from your point of view has no bearing on it being an option nor how prevalent it is.

That's not a conversation at all; it's a fiefdom, and it's explicitly not the intended way to play the game even in the "rulings not rules" era.

"Bad actors will exploit it therefore it's bad" is not, has never been, and will never be a particularly compelling argument against the thing in question.

it is in greater society so why not in dnd?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is bad and also bad actors exploit it, however.

Because the Calvinball nature of ruling not rules is also bad, IMO.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't understand why "DM fiat" is seen as such a dirty word (or given the extremely condescending label of "Mother-May-I"). The conversation between the players and the DM, and the DM playing the role as final arbitrator, is why I play RPGs. There's obviously a lot to be said for player agency, but I think the drive the limit the amount of times that DM has to adjudicate something is an extremely wrong-headed one.

I would recommend (re-)reading the MMI thread rather than re-hashing it here.

That's not a conversation at all; it's a fiefdom, and it's explicitly not the intended way to play the game even in the "rulings not rules" era.

"Bad actors will exploit it therefore it's bad" is not, has never been, and will never be a particularly compelling argument against the thing in question.

You say this, but have you read this forum and how other DMs have cited the rules that its their game and that their authority is unquestionable? For everyone of those DMs here, there are at least ten more of them out there.

 

[Gradine]

it is in greater society so why not in dnd?

It is common in greater society, but it is also incredibly bad there as well

It is bad and also bad actors exploit it, however.

Because the Calvinball nature of ruling not rules is also bad, IMO.

I disagree that it is bad, and have yet to hear a convincing argument that it is. I don't want a complex game with rules that cover every conceivable edge case. I know that there's a market for that, there are games out there that cater to it, and they are not fully unpopular. But I am so, unbelievably glad that D&D no longer is that. IMO

I would recommend (re-)reading the MMI thread rather than re-hashing it here.

It seemed relevant to the conversation at hand.

You say this, but have you read this forum and how other DMs have cited the rules that its their game and that their authority is unquestionable? For everyone of those DMs here, there are at least ten more of them out there.

Of course there are bad, despotic DMs. But these are not some new phenomenon. It's not like Crawford wrote down the words "rulings not rules" and a thousand cruel and devious souls suddenly awakened from the mists of time to exact revenge on unsuspecting players. For as long as there's been D&D there's been DMs like that. Limiting the DM's abilities of arbitration isn't going to make those people go away, or change their ways at all. All it does is allow the game, and more specifically the conversation, to flow more smoothly.

It's that conversation that paves the way for the greatest truth of all "rulings not rules" gives players more agency too. The less a player is bound to the page, or their sheet, the more freedom they have to experiment, to try new things, to contribute to the conversation of the game in ways they wouldn't be otherwise.

 

[Aldarc]

Of course there are bad, despotic DMs. But these are not some new phenomenon. It's not like Crawford wrote down the words "rulings not rules" and a thousand cruel and devious souls suddenly awakened from the mists of time to exact revenge on unsuspecting players. For as long as there's been D&D there's been DMs like that. Limiting the DM's abilities of arbitration isn't going to make those people go away, or change their ways at all. All it does is allow the game, and more specifically the conversation, to flow more smoothly.

It's that conversation that paves the way for the greatest truth of all "rulings not rules" gives players more agency too. The less a player is bound to the page, or their sheet, the more freedom they have to experiment, to try new things, to contribute to the conversation of the game in ways they wouldn't be otherwise.

I doubt that we will see eye-to-eye on this matter philosophically speaking, and I'm not all that interested in getting dragged into this with you now while our respect for each other is still (hopefully) intact. My apologies for replying in the first place.

 

[Gradine]

I doubt that we will see eye-to-eye on this matter philosophically speaking, and I'm not all that interested in getting dragged into this with you now while our respect for each other is still (hopefully) intact. My apologies for replying in the first place.

Believe me, this is not the kind of argument that impacts my respect for folks. As heated as these conversations seem to get for some reason, it is still, in the end, a game about make believe elves.

 

[Undrave]

I don't understand why "DM fiat" is seen as such a dirty word (or given the extremely condescending label of "Mother-May-I"). The conversation between the players and the DM, and the DM playing the role as final arbitrator, is why I play RPGs. There's obviously a lot to be said for player agency, but I think the drive the limit the amount of times that DM has to adjudicate something is an extremely wrong-headed one.

1) because DM fiat is often used to keep non-magical character up to a standard that is actually more restrictive than reality because of some innate bias of the DMs.

On the old D&D 4e forums, I remember a guy claiming it shouldn’t be possible to do archery on horseback! Another classic exemple is a Barbarian, while raging, falling down a cliff and the DM deciding there was no way the character would survive, despite the fact the fall damage rules would indicate it was possible AND the fall being nowhere near the world record for a survived free fall. Or the simple fact that no Fighter in the game can apparently approach any real world records in term of jumping, running or lifting…An unequal amount of DM fiat needed to function is an underrated element of class balance. I’ve played Cartoon Action Hour and that thing is super loose compared to even 5e DnD, but there’s no character is less dependent on DM fiat than another so it works there.

And 2) I’m purchasing a product made by professional designers. I expect professional design. I don’t expect every corner cases covered, but I expect that the rules that ARE there to be held to a professional standard of game design, and the missing rules be framed by solid guidance on how to improvise rulings. In that context, ‘Rulings not Rules’ sounds more like a lazy ‘ SHRUG Figure it out yourself’.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think I'd rather play ten games of Calvinball than one game of chess.

(Assuming we're still talking about D&D)

 

[CleverNickName]

strange from your point of view has no bearing on it being an option nor how prevalent it is.

It has the same bearing as other opinions to the contrary. In other words: insisting that something is prevalent and problematic for you doesn't mean it is anything of the sort for anyone else.

 

[Gradine]

In that context, ‘Rulings not Rules’ sounds more like a lazy ‘ SHRUG Figure it out yourself’.

There's a lot of words here that are undoubtedly true to you, but I wanted to single out this statement because I think it's an absolutely unfair assessment of the design philosophy. You cannot accuse the designers of D&D of laziness without some serious evidence to back that up, especially since there are plenty of reasons why "rulings not rules" is a feature and not a bug. You may not like the choice, and I can understand and respect that, but to extrapolate that to cast aspersions on real peoples' character is a step too far.

It's not an abdication of responsibility. It's an invitation to agency.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So... we should stop discussing anything forever?

 

[Vaalingrade]

especially since there are plenty of reasons why "rulings not rules" is a feature and not a bug.

Ooo! Ooo! I know this one!

Manipulative nostalgia bait, which was the point during the D&D Next run-up?

 

[Gradine]

So... we should stop discussing anything forever?

I'm not sure that's a solution that would make anyone happy (except for maybe the mods ). Sometimes the point of an argument isn't to change anybody's mind. Especially if you're on a Debate team

 

[Vaalingrade]

Especially if you're on a Debate team

I brought a tire iron the the meets!

 

[Gradine]

Ooo! Ooo! I know this one!

Manipulative nostalgia bait, which was the point during the D&D Next run-up?

Wrong, and on just about every account. Also, negative points for casting negative aspersions on real human designers in response to a post about how we shouldn't be doing exactly that. I'd have Johnny tell you what you won, but I think you already know the answer to that one.

"I don't prefer this style of game design" is not "these soulless lazy hucksters have worked hard to capture nostalgia while also being too lazy to design a game".

 

[Undrave]

There's a lot of words here that are undoubtedly true to you, but I wanted to single out this statement because I think it's an absolutely unfair assessment of the design philosophy. You cannot accuse the designers of D&D of laziness without some serious evidence to back that up, especially since there are plenty of reasons why "rulings not rules" is a feature and not a bug. You may not like the choice, and I can understand and respect that, but to extrapolate that to cast aspersions on real peoples' character is a step too far.

It's not an abdication of responsibility. It's an invitation to agency.

Eh... it's a continuum that is debatable for various rules element, and it really depends on wording.

Some of the ol' Sage Advice column almost felt like giving bad advice on purpose to punish people for DARING to ask for advice when they didn't feel confident in their own skills.

'Rulings not rules' also puts a lot of pressure on inexperienced DMs and I don't feel like the game as purchased does enough to support people like that.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It has the same bearing as other opinions to the contrary. In other words: insisting that something is prevalent and problematic for you doesn't mean it is anything of the sort for anyone else.

fair but you have made the conversation pointless unless some wants o do a quantitative survey and they have not gotten around to teaching me that.

it is a problem for me but not you, the real question is are we in conflict or is this a false argument?

 

[Gradine]

Eh... it's a continuum that is debatable for various rules element, and it really depends on wording.

Some of the ol' Sage Advice column almost felt like giving bad advice on purpose to punish people for DARING to ask for advice when they didn't feel confident in their own skills.

So, Hanlon's Razor suggests "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", but I would personally add, "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by a difference in preference." Crawford may or may not be the ultimate authority on the game he helped write (that seems an open-shut case to me but I also subscribe to the idea that D&D, like all TTRPGs, belong to us) but ascribing malice to such examples seems like more than a little bit too much of a stretch.

'Rulings not rules' also puts a lot of pressure on inexperienced DMs and I don't feel like the game as purchased does enough to support people like that.

Also, not to be that gal that leans on appeal to popularity, but considering the vast increase in new players (and indeed, new DMs) and that these numbers have only risen throughout the years, I just don't see there being much evidence to support that position and a boatload that refutes it. I mean, they gotta be doing something right, no?