D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

[mcbobbo]

RAW is the baseline for establishing trust in the game at both sides of the table (player or DM).

RAW is one among many methods for doing this. I personally prefer discussion and understanding.

 

[Mistwell]

The response is not only flawed without the expanded answer, it isn't even an answer! The person complaining certainly knows that the DM can interpret the rules--this is ENWorld, not Role-Playing Games 101. But interpreting rules is work, imposing a cost (however small) in time and cognitive effort. You need to provide a reason why that work is worth doing or you aren't answering the complaint.

Part of that is because the complaint itself isn't a question. "The 5E stealth rules are unclear and ambiguous" is not a question, so why are you complaining that the response doesn't answer it? Why do I need to provide a reason why the rules are unclear and ambiguous, unless you're willing to explain why it would be a bad thing if they are. Ambiguity in rules is not an inherently bad thing. There are entire game systems that are intentionally ambiguous to serve as a toolset for a very broad set of adjudications rather than a set of dictates.

The exact same Oberoni response could be applied to any complaint of poor writing and ambiguity in the rules.

These are separate issues and you keep conflating them. Ambiguity is often intentional, and I gave you an example from Mearls where he explains the stealth rules are intentionally written that way. Bad writing, on the other hand, often doesn't need anything to "fix" it. As long as you understand the intent, you don't need a "fix". For instance, I have lots of grammatical errors in my responses to you, but my bad writing doesn't need a fix to communicate my intent to you, right? On the other hand, there is some bad writing that just doesn't function to communicate any intent. But I don't see the Fallacy responses typically about those types.

If it is sufficient to respond to such complaints with "The DM can interpret the rules, so there isn't a problem," that means there cannot ever be a problem with poorly written ambiguous rules--even in cases where that ambiguity is not in fact speeding up play or reducing rules-lawyering.

First that's just wrong. Lots and lots of rules simply are not open to interpretation, and I think you will find that's not a response to a great many rules. It's a good answer when dealing with a rule which is open for interpretation, like the stealth rule.

But take for instance the Grappler feat in 5e. The third part of it says, "Creatures that are one size larger than you don’t automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple." But, that's referencing an old rule from the playtest which doesn't exist in the game at all anymore. It's an error (or, as you put it, a poorly written rule). It's not ambiguous, it's just erroneous. I don't see anyone saying, "you're wrong for complaining about that rule because DM interpretation can fix it". There is no "interpretation" there to fix it, it's just a whoops. We know what their intent was - it was to carry over a rule from the playtest while they forgot that rule had been changed. There are lots of obvious house rules to address it (like saying you can grapple bigger creatures) but I have not seen those responses combined with "which makes it not broken because I can house rule it to function".

Second, speeding up play and reducing rules-lawyering are not the only reasons rules are intentionally written in an ambiguous fashion. For instance, the stealth rule was left ambiguous so that it can apply to the maximum number of circumstances with a flexible set of principals and guidelines rather than a rigid set of dictates. It gives you some principals that you as a DM can use as tools to work out stealth issues that arise. If someone "complains" that the rule is vague and ambiguous, your answer is "yes, it's one of those rules intentionally left to DM interpretation". I don't see why any further answer is needed - there is no argumentative fallacy in that response.

As an example of the latter, I'll put out 5E magic missile and the Empowered Evocation ability (which adds your Int modifier to the damage roll of any evocation spell you cast). The way Empowered Evocation is written, it's not clear if you add Int mod to the damage of every missile, or once per target, or once for the whole spell. This is not an area where the DM has value to add by adjudicating on a case-by-case basis. Nor is it an obscure corner case; magic missile is a favorite low-level damage spell, and a generous reading of Empowered Evocation can increase its damage output by almost two-thirds compared to a narrow reading. Nor would it require a half column of jargon to clarify what it means. This really is just an ambiguous, poorly-written rule.

So you're saying it was not intended to be left to interpretation, like the stealth rule. OK. So who is saying "I can interpret it therefore it's not broken"? In my experience, that response is reserved for rules where it's intended to be up to the DM, like the stealth rule, which you complained about earlier.

 

[mcbobbo]

It can lead to inconsistent calls, you are guessing at what the writers intended, and the biggest problem it is often leads to on the spot calls.

On the spot calls are really bad. Your options are to delay the whole game while you read through the book and try to figure out what was intended or to make a haphazard call that you can later find out is a huge mistake.

This is an old problem with an old solution:

Wing it now, look it up later. If you make a mistake, admit it and discuss a way to resolve it.

The oldest reference I have on me is pg 14 of the Red Box DMG, so at least 1983.

That said, it still applies with RAW because not all of us have photographic memories , or have even read all the books...

 

[mcbobbo]

This has nothing to do with trust. The player simply can not be sure what his character is capable off until it is confirmed by the DM. And imo this is not a desired state to have.

For me, this tracks with reality. I am not always successful at what I attempt. If I had a dollar for every time I have said "that SHOULD have worked"...

 

[mcbobbo]

Nor is it an obscure corner case; magic missile is a favorite low-level damage spell, and a generous reading of Empowered Evocation can increase its damage output by almost two-thirds compared to a narrow reading. Nor would it require a half column of jargon to clarify what it means. This really is just an ambiguous, poorly-written rule.

But the DM can interpret it, so it's not a problem.

In this case, it really isn't a problem, because the DM can also change her mind and discuss it with the group. There just doesn't seem to be enough impact here to justify RFE.

Personally I think I'll take the board gamer's track and rule it along the words on the page. If you roll, add your bonus. Each time you roll, and I don't particularly care why you are rolling.

Clean and simple, imo.

 

[KarinsDad]

Have to agree. Not to be a jerk as DM but, My Campaign, "RAI", Common Sense prevails & consistency. If you can't accept that then it's time for you to move on and find another game.

I find it interesting how many DMs here on the boards take this hard line with (sometimes) old time friends.

Most people I've ever gamed with state that the DM is the final arbitrator and most DMs I've seen play RAW unless something unusual is going on (like the PCs are affected by the magic mushrooms).

The reason is the shared social contract. Every player at the game table (including the DM) is contributing to the game. The players rarely have a good time if the DM cannot create a decent adventure and/or treats his players in a negative way. On the other hand, the DM does not even have a game without players.

It's not a matter of players being rules lawyers, it's a matter of the DM not going so far off the deep end with his RAI that the game becomes inconsistent. With RAW, that rarely happens.

And I have been at many tables where we do not bother looking up rules until afterwards. It's ok and even sometimes expected for the DM to use RAI if nobody knows the rules, but purposely ignoring or changing the rules on the fly tends to impact the shared social contract for some players. DMs only have so much power. Cross the line too much, it might be time for the DM to move on.


I once joined a Champions group. The first 6 hour session had two 1 turn combats with little roleplaying in between. After each PC's or NPC's turn, the DM literally took a minute to a minute and a half writing stuff behind his gaming sheet. He was so excruciatingly slow. So a few days after the game on his blog site, I recommended a few things to speed it up (like dropping a minor foe if it still had 2 or 3 stun remaining, etc.). He said that nobody ever told him that it was slow and every other player suddenly chimed in and told him. The game actually disintegrated at that point because the DM took offense, but what I found interesting was that the players were willing to put up with a really painful campaign because they thought that the DM had all of the power and their perspective did not matter as much as the DM's.

No, it's a shared social contract with both players and DM. Like most things in life, both sides have to give and take a little for the benefit of all.

 

[prosfilaes]

Again you are ignoring what I am talking about.

I think it more appropriate to say we're talking past each other.

There's a range of issues. I believe that rules clear as written should generally be followed as written, and long-standing ambiguities should be worked out with the players. DMs should be most quick and autocratic when it's a one-time situation and it's most important just to keep the game going.

Some people really do have this misguided notion that a "bad" as in "evil" DM can be engaged if the rules are sufficiently tight so as to force good behavior. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Who has this idea? I only hear about these people from people who oppose them, so I'd like to read their own words, if they really exist.

We are talking about cases where the DM has to make a judgment call. I'm saying those cases should be defined primarily by the DM in his campaign.

As opposed to what?

 

[Eric V]

I just want to say that if the rules were written to be vague, then it was a waste of time. People have been homebrewing and interpreting their own rules since D&D began.

Some people prefer solid RAW because it keeps everyone om the same page, and yet allows for DM's to make up their own rules of they want. This way, you cater to everyone. Is there some sort of mind magic that Wizards thinks is happening to people out there to where they can't play outside the written RAW, even though it's been happening since the beginning?

This seems the most correct to me. DMs have totally been doing house rules since the game began (usually one of the first things to go, IME, was level limits on demihumans...) and never needed purposely-ambiguous rules to do so. What would have been so bad with having clearly written rules and then DMs doing what they always did anyway? We get to the same point except everybody with a PHB has a common understanding of the rules, and then the DM hands out his "campaign-specific exceptions." A rulebook that has rules that have intelligent people coming to different understandings of how the game works makes me wonder what is the expertise I paid for...

 

[Eric V]

BTW, can anyone think of the loophole Mearls is referring to whereby one is visible in front of an opponent but because of some loophole in the stealth rules the opponent cannot detect you?

 

[Thank Dog]

If she were just standing between the bushes, she couldn't hide there, since she's visible; but she's already successfully hidden.

Visible? Yes. Seen? Depends. And that, I think, is the disconnect for many people with these stealth rules. It's up to the DM to determine whether the character is seen by anyone at any point while they aren't obscured or behind cover. The instant the DM determines that the character can be seen, then the character is no longer hidden from that enemy. That still doesn't mean that the character isn't hidden from other enemies who can't see him.