Apologies for the length. I try to make my points as complete as possible to avoid misunderstandings.
I'm fine with that, and honestly we have drifted far from the discussions here, just showing how different our games are. You game by the rules and give the players every opportunity to explore them and the way they interact during the games, for me the rules are just a tool that we might be using (or not) to support the story.
At this point, with the importance of the rules for you, it's clear that not abiding by the ones that you fixed at the start is a form of cheating, and not following them are mistakes. For us, telling the story through the rules is not what we are interested in, and the mistakes are to think that the rules should define what happens at the table, and therefore there can be no cheating, as rules are flexible.
Just be aware that saying that we are making mistakes by not following the rules to the letter, or that we are inaccurate in our way of gaming, or that we are cheating when changing the rules on the fly is actually fairly offensive, so you might want to reconsider the words that you are using when describing someone else's way of gaming. None of the previous terms have any justification even in the rules themselves, only in the view that you have about how the game should be played.
On top of this, we also have differences about the role of the DM, you think he is mostly a referee, where I think that we don't really need a referee because the rules are not important, so he is more the game's lead storyteller. Once more, both are fine, it's just that it leads us to completely different answers to this thread's question.
And you can think what you want, but so can I, I do believe that doing any kind of work is more worthy of respect than not doing any. General principle of life, cultural if you want. After that, this does not mean that every person is not entitled to some measure of respect, especially friends players at your table, but assuming that it is the case, and all over things being equal at a table (which, actually, there are not, for example in every sport there is a special respect allocated to the referee, especially in your interpretation of the DM's role), it still makes the DM more worthy of respect than his players.
Onto more specific points:
- It's all well and good to bring up things like mage slayer, but you should not forget that it works within 5 feet of you, not across the battlefield anyway: "As noted in the Player’s Handbook, you normally don’t know that a spell has been cast unless the spell produces a noticeable effect."
- As for Xanathar, you are reversing the sentence "To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component." It does not mean that it HAS to be perceivable in any circumstances from across the battlefield, it just says that if it does not involve these elements, it is not perceivable. And in the original example, the act of spellcasting was clearly visible, the "ranger" muttered before attacking (again, the Verbal component does not require you to be specifically loud or particularly distinct as "The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power"), which considering the distance is a perfect interpretation of something that is perceivable and was actually perceived. But because the spell did not create any perceivable effect,
So, once more, please don't try to force a strict interpretation of the rules on us, it might work in a few cases, but it's also one of the reasons for me liking 5e, even RAW, the rules have been written to have myriads of interpretations depending on your sensibilities.
So, back to this thread, if a DM wants to preserve the mystery of spellcasting, and go on with the story without being hounded to death by players trying to force rules interpretations to pry secrets out of him, it's absolutely his right, he is 100% supported by the game as well, and suggesting that he is not doing his job well is actually offensive (and from my perspective, keeping the secrets and encouraging players to roleplay in character is actually a worthy goal of the way we are playing the game).
In conclusion, please stop telling anyone that they are making mistakes when playing because they do not play the way you do. Once more, I leave you with this sentence from the devs: "To play D&D,
and to play it well,
you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice.
None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."
I'm fine with that, and honestly we have drifted far from the discussions here, just showing how different our games are. You game by the rules and give the players every opportunity to explore them and the way they interact during the games, for me the rules are just a tool that we might be using (or not) to support the story.
At this point, with the importance of the rules for you, it's clear that not abiding by the ones that you fixed at the start is a form of cheating, and not following them are mistakes. For us, telling the story through the rules is not what we are interested in, and the mistakes are to think that the rules should define what happens at the table, and therefore there can be no cheating, as rules are flexible.
Just be aware that saying that we are making mistakes by not following the rules to the letter, or that we are inaccurate in our way of gaming, or that we are cheating when changing the rules on the fly is actually fairly offensive, so you might want to reconsider the words that you are using when describing someone else's way of gaming. None of the previous terms have any justification even in the rules themselves, only in the view that you have about how the game should be played.
On top of this, we also have differences about the role of the DM, you think he is mostly a referee, where I think that we don't really need a referee because the rules are not important, so he is more the game's lead storyteller. Once more, both are fine, it's just that it leads us to completely different answers to this thread's question.
And you can think what you want, but so can I, I do believe that doing any kind of work is more worthy of respect than not doing any. General principle of life, cultural if you want. After that, this does not mean that every person is not entitled to some measure of respect, especially friends players at your table, but assuming that it is the case, and all over things being equal at a table (which, actually, there are not, for example in every sport there is a special respect allocated to the referee, especially in your interpretation of the DM's role), it still makes the DM more worthy of respect than his players.
Onto more specific points:
- It's all well and good to bring up things like mage slayer, but you should not forget that it works within 5 feet of you, not across the battlefield anyway: "As noted in the Player’s Handbook, you normally don’t know that a spell has been cast unless the spell produces a noticeable effect." Edit: ALso feats are optional, and bringing a single one of them as a "proof" that the whole system should work a specific way seems a very weak argument.
- As for Xanathar, you are reversing the sentence "To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component." It does not mean that it HAS to be perceivable in any circumstances from across the battlefield, it just says that if it does not involve these elements, it is not perceivable. And in the original example, the act of spellcasting was clearly visible, the "ranger" muttered before attacking (again, the Verbal component does not require you to be specifically loud or particularly distinct as "The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power"), which considering the distance is a perfect interpretation of something that is perceivable and was actually perceived. But because the spell did not create any perceivable effect,
So, once more, please don't try to force a strict interpretation of the rules on us, it might work in a few cases, but it's also one of the reasons for me liking 5e, even RAW, the rules have been written to have myriads of interpretations depending on your sensibilities.
So, back to this thread, if a DM wants to preserve the mystery of spellcasting, and go on with the story without being hounded to death by players trying to force rules interpretations to pry secrets out of him, it's absolutely his right, he is 100% supported by the game as well, and suggesting that he is not doing his job well is actually offensive (and from my perspective, keeping the secrets and encouraging players to roleplay in character is actually a worthy goal of the way we are playing the game).
In conclusion, please stop telling anyone that they are making mistakes when playing because they do not play the way you do. Once more, I leave you with this sentence from the devs: "To play D&D,
and to play it well,
you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice.
None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."
I find it strange that you keep thinking I'm trying to enforce a view of strict interpretations of the rules on you and others. Or that they are making a mistake by not playing the way I do. I have never said those things. Here are some of the things I have said.
1) By the rules, the player is not incorrect in assuming that they will know when a spell is cast. The rules do not say that all spells are imperceptible unless they have an effect, they clearly indicate that the casting of a spell is noticeable. The DM may wish to change this, but the OP has not given any indication that that was their intention. You are projecting your own values upon them. My point was never that the DM was obviously in the wrong, but that the Player was
also not obviously in the wrong. There is room to give both parties the benefit of the doubt.
I also find your use of language to constantly be combative and confrontational. For example, the player asking questions to make sure they understand the scene is the DM "being hounded to death" and the players "trying to force rules interpretations to pry secrets out of him". Despite you seeming to believe the best of your own players as collaborators, you seem to imagine everyone who isn't sitting at your table to be constantly attacking their DMs and seeking an advantage over them. I have never once seen you engage with the idea of a player asking or considering any technical information in a way that wasn't the player being borderline abusive and ignoring "the spirit of the game"
2) I have never said that a DM playing loose with the rules is a mistake. What I did say is that DMs can make mistakes, when they intend to follow a rule, but accidentally do not. Again, you are projecting your own values here by saying that such a thing is not a mistake, when the DM
themselves might feel that it was. If the DM in the OP is that type, who when not following the rules in the way they wanted to follow them considers that a mistake, then questions from the players about specific oddities would not be the players attacking the DM, hounding the DM, or distrusting the DM, but trying to be helpful.
Now, we can assume that the DM doesn't feel that way, because they asked for advice. But we can consider that such DMs do exist, and that as such, players for those DMs would view asking questions like this in a different light. I'm not saying that everyone must follow the same format, but perhaps we consider if this player learned the game in that sort of environment, where helping the DM not forget the rules was considered a good thing, and therefore not something the player should be ashamed of or castigated for.
3) On cheating. My original statement was quite broad and vague, on purpose. I simply stated it was possible for the DM to cheat. For example, since this conversation started I have been told absolutely that a DM using weighted dice to roll is not cheating. Would you agree with that statement? Would say that no cheating is going on if the DM is using weighted dice?
The point of my original statement was one of fairness. If we are going to assume the worst of players, then we should assume the worst of DMs as well. If we don't want to assume the worst of DMs, then what is the purpose of assuming the worst of players? There didn't need to be a discussion of cheating at all, but you felt the need to bring it up in regards to players. And there has been a lot of assumptions about the player in the OP, many accusation thrown their way for doing nothing more than asking questions. And you yourself were quite harsh on this player, which reads to me like trying to force your values upon others. I'm not saying your values are lesser than others, but that if you go forward assuming that your values are applying to every scenario, then you are going to continue getting push back.
4) An example of this. You have quoted that designer blurb dozens of times. Seemingly with the idea that no one else has ever read it. But, have you considered that we did read it, and saw something in it you didn't?
"To play D&D,
and to play it well,
you don’t need to read all the rules" You bolded the entire part, but did you ever wonder about their point of "all the rules"? You seem to interpret it that to play the game well you don't need to have read or understood any of the rules, but I think the designers weren't going that far. You likely do need to read the rules for your class. If you are casting spells, you likely need to be familiar with the spellcasting rules. If you are playing a rogue, you don't need to know the rules for Wild Shape, but you probably should know the rules for bonus actions and sneak attack. You can play without knowing those rules, I suppose, but is that actually what you do? Do none of your players follow any of the rules? Or do they just follow the rules that apply to them? Did they memorize the rules for crafting items, or did they decide that they didn't need to know those rules? The designers weren't rejecting all rules, they were simply saying that mastering every single rule is unnecessary.
"None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game." What is best about the game? Having fun with friends, obviously. So, the rules have no bearing on having fun with your friends. However, it doesn't say that the rules have no bearing on the game. And actually, what they are really saying is this "Reading and memorizing all the rules and mastering the art of rolling dice doesn't have any bearing on having fun." Which, again, does not mean that you shouldn't read the rules or that the dice don't matter. You have taken a very bland statement, and made an extreme point that you try and bludgeon us with at every opportunity, to enforce that your values and your way of playing is actually intended by the designers of the game. It is warping their intent to make a false appeal to authority.
Again, I'm not saying that the inverse of your position is true. That we all must memorize the rules, and slavishly obey them, simply that you continually take an extreme position and then defend that position by calling upon the designers and aggressively quoting them.
Another example of this, you seem to think that the DM as referee of the rules and the DM as "lead storyteller" are opposed. I'd say they are not. In fact, I would say being a referee of the rules isn't even solely the DM's responsibility. I find it much better when the table decides an odd situation together. Perhaps the DMs vote holds more weight, but I feel like collaborating with your players leads to a better game with more investment. But, for this to happen, the players have to be able to engage with the technical side of the game. Which does not prevent them from roleplaying. I, as the DM, engage in the mechanical and technical side of the game constantly, yet I also roleplay far more characters than the players ever do. I don't think I'm particularly special, so I don't see how a player is incapable of both giving and receiving technical information and roleplaying. The two don't cancel each other out.
