Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Philosophy of 5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6330494" data-attributes="member: 58197"><p>Here's my view on the subject of "rulings over rules."</p><p></p><p>DM judgement is a potent and a finite resource. <em>Potent</em>: 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. <em>Finite</em>: 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Hard rules ought to cover common, expected situations. DM judgement should be used for oddball corner cases. For example, you <em>could</em> 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 <em>all</em> corner cases. So social interaction is left mostly to DM judgement, with the assistance of a few simple tools like Persuasion checks.</p><p></p><p>However, there is a difference between <em>limited</em> rules (which codify certain things and leave others to the DM, perhaps with guidelines) and <em>ambiguous</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>[SIZE=-2]*And on these forums.[/SIZE]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6330494, member: 58197"] Here's my view on the subject of "rulings over rules." DM judgement is a potent and a finite resource. [I]Potent[/I]: 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. [I]Finite[/I]: 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 [I]could[/I] 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 [I]all[/I] 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 [I]limited[/I] rules (which codify certain things and leave others to the DM, perhaps with guidelines) and [I]ambiguous[/I] 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] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Philosophy of 5e
Top