D&D 5E Design Philosophy of 5e

[Lanefan]

You wanted 1e stat blocks?

Stripped down 1e stat blocks, if possible: frequency, number appearing, % in lair, treasure type can all go; psionic ability can go except for the few monsters that have it. And much of the write-up can be put into expanded point-form SA-SD-SQ* lines, leaving just the description and environment notes for the paragraph(s) below.

* - SA Special Attack, SD Special Defense, SQ Special Quality

Lanefan

 

[Balesir]

My experience with rules light systems involve a lot of situations where the GM works with the table to figure out how a particular situation is resolved. I've seen that as an explicit process (like Dogs in the Vineyard) or more of an implicit give and take (how I've seen Apocalypse World games run). Either way, it differs from the process you describe in that:

1) the "rule" isn't being made by just one guy; it incorporates the opinions of the table as a whole
2) it's not really a "rule" in that it's not necessarily repeatable; the table could easily find it boring to repeat the same resolution the next time the situation comes up
3) rather than a "rule" that's been thought through and hashed out, you get a ruling that is less considered but precisely tailored to what seems fun at the time

I'll grant you that (a) this experience is obviously not for everyone (and for many who like it, not for all the time) and (b) that the player doesn't necessarily know what will happen in advance.

Sorry to come back late - helluva week last week...

I think it's interesting to consider what we mean by "rule" in these sorts of situation. I would be inclined to say the "rule" described here was the process of decision by the table. PrimeTime Adventures has rules similar to this: the rules don't attempt to define the outcome of any scene/action, they rather define who gets to make the decision and according to what criteria/within what constraints. This is, indeed, an interesting way to play (even though it is quite different from most "traditional" conceptions of RPGs), but I think it still benefits from having the rules written down in advance for just the reasons I described earlier. That way, while the players don't know deterministically how outcomes will be determined, they know the process involved and who will have discretion - this can actually be a good way to take player focus away from min-maxing and strategizing (if those play foci are not intended to be "the point" of play in this particular case), but you need to be careful not to switch the strategizing over to a game of "influence the decision maker" (unless, of course, you want a game of "influence the decision maker"!)

 

[Aenghus]

I hate ambiguous rules, especially when a small change in wording could obviously resolve the situation for most people. It's that my tolerance of ambiguity is low, and I hate the debates that ambiguous rules lead to. Decisions take energy, and I feel the decisions that ambiguous rules force on the referee are all wasted energy that could be better used to run a good game.

There are a bunch of reasons for unnecessarily ambiguous rules.

Amongst them are:

• Deadlines
• Disinterest
• lack of inspiration
• mistakes
• editing issues
• disagreements amongst the designers

The editions wars have shown me another reason - to duck controversy as the lesser evil. When there are multiple camps supporting various interpretations of a particular issue, and siding with any of them will immediately draw the ire of all the other camps, it can be easier to just not choose and let the players sort it out themselves.

I've already accepted that 5e and "rulings not rules" isn't for me.

 

[Halivar]

The editions wars have shown me another very good reason - to duck controversy as the lesser evil. When there are multiple camps supporting various interpretations of a particular issue, and siding with any of them will immediately draw the ire of all the other camps, it can be easier to just not choose and let the players sort it out themselves.

I would change "easier" to "correct". I don't want WotC telling me how to run my game. I want some rough guidelines, and then I want them to get out of the way. 3E and 4E are both offenders in this regard; OSR is surprisingly refreshing.

EDIT: I suspect (and expect) the DMG to have the nitty-gritty rules for people that want more granularity in their rules, but not core so people like me can ignore them.

 

[Dausuul]

Here's my view on the subject of "rulings over rules."

DM judgement is a potent and a finite resource. Potent: It can easily achieve a level of plausibility and nuance that would require an encyclopedia of rulebooks and an army of rules lawyers to produce through formula. And it can do so without hours digging through books to figure out what rule applies in this situation. Finite: The DM is a very busy person, with only so much time and attention. She's got to create and keep track of countless plot elements, run most of the combatants in each encounter, figure out how NPCs and creatures will respond to PC actions, and keep the fun going. Every time the DM is called upon to adjudicate a rules question, that's a drain on her mental energy from the other business of running the game.

1E and 2E understood the potency of DM judgement, but not its finiteness. They relied far too heavily on the DM to make everything work. 3E and 4E understood the finiteness of DM judgement, but not its potency. They tried to codify everything in rules so that the DM would never have to make judgements at all.

Hard rules ought to cover common, expected situations. DM judgement should be used for oddball corner cases. For example, you could leave it up to the DM to decide the AC value of common armor like leather, mail, and plate. But that's not a productive use of the DM's time, so the AC value of standard armor is codified in the rules. On the other hand, what if a player cobbles together patchwork armor out of sheepskin, metal serving trays, and a cookpot? Writing rules to cover this sort of thing would be absurd. So the DM's judgement rules, using the book AC values as a guideline. Some scenarios, like social interactions, are too complex for hard rules--they're all corner cases. So social interaction is left mostly to DM judgement, with the assistance of a few simple tools like Persuasion checks.

However, there is a difference between limited rules (which codify certain things and leave others to the DM, perhaps with guidelines) and ambiguous rules (rules which clearly intend to codify something, but whose meaning is unclear). The latter are never a good thing. Resolving ambiguity in the rules is a pure waste of the DM's judgement, as well as a recipe for arguments at the table*. A rule should be clear on what it means, or not exist at all.

[SIZE=-2]*And on these forums.[/SIZE]