I quoted the passage upthread. You've reposted it yourself.
I stand by my view that it shows that Aragorn is not a mundane woodsman.
D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?
pming
Legend
Hiya.
(a bit late to the party, but...)
I don't think it's "miles clearer"...it's just more specific. Does drinking a potion fall into that? You can drink a potion as one action in 3.5e, right? But is is still that easy if you are wearing cesti? Can you even get it out of your pack as easily? I don't think there's a skill for that, so the 'rule' is moot. What about climbing a rope? Opening a sticky doorknob? Cutting your steak dinner? Saddling your horse?
Basically, just because there is a "more specific" rule to something doesn't mean it's "more clear". In my experience, having more specific rules doesn't make things easier during the game, it just adds speed bumps to a session. If there are 'specific rules' for everything, then when anything is attempted in the game, the game basically pauses as someone finds the appropriate book, flips to the rule, and goes over it looking for a situation that applies to this one. If one doesn't present itself, the DM ends up adjudicating something anyway. However, as 5e is written, when the rule is more "open to interpretation", chances are it's that way because of wording. And the wording is mostly in "common parlance" (re: "Trying to avoid detection is generally difficult when travelling on cobblestone"). That is FAR easier to remember than a three-sentence description followed by a nine-point list of adjustments for various situations.
Obviously I prefer the "loosey-goosey" way of rules over the "rules-lawyer" way of rules. Different strokes for different folks and all that I guess!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
(a bit late to the party, but...)
Siberys said:
I don't think it's "miles clearer"...it's just more specific. Does drinking a potion fall into that? You can drink a potion as one action in 3.5e, right? But is is still that easy if you are wearing cesti? Can you even get it out of your pack as easily? I don't think there's a skill for that, so the 'rule' is moot. What about climbing a rope? Opening a sticky doorknob? Cutting your steak dinner? Saddling your horse?
Basically, just because there is a "more specific" rule to something doesn't mean it's "more clear". In my experience, having more specific rules doesn't make things easier during the game, it just adds speed bumps to a session. If there are 'specific rules' for everything, then when anything is attempted in the game, the game basically pauses as someone finds the appropriate book, flips to the rule, and goes over it looking for a situation that applies to this one. If one doesn't present itself, the DM ends up adjudicating something anyway. However, as 5e is written, when the rule is more "open to interpretation", chances are it's that way because of wording. And the wording is mostly in "common parlance" (re: "Trying to avoid detection is generally difficult when travelling on cobblestone"). That is FAR easier to remember than a three-sentence description followed by a nine-point list of adjustments for various situations.
Obviously I prefer the "loosey-goosey" way of rules over the "rules-lawyer" way of rules. Different strokes for different folks and all that I guess!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Siberys
Adventurer
[MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] - None of those actions are dex-based skill checks, so if that were RAW instead of the mushy mess that is the existing wording, yes, more specific /would/ also be miles clearer.
If the GM thought those actions should be penalized for wearing a cestus, they could make a ruling. GMs should always be /able/ to make a ruling. I just dislike rules that /require/ it.
And, honestly, my position doesn't intersect with number of rules all that much. I tend to play games now that have much, much lighter rules systems than D&D has /ever/ had, and none of those games try to rely on RAI - everything rules-wise is laid out in pretty direct mechanical language. Take a look at Fate Accelerated for an example of such a game. Contrast with lighter versions of D&D - they replace mechanical weight with "situational" weight (for lack of a better term - I refer here, again, to the need to make a ruling instead of just resolving a rule).
Let me put it another way; I'm talking about the difference between Rules and Guidelines. Rules should, given one input, have exactly one output. Guidelines allow for more variance. When I purchase a game, I want a RULEbook - I am pretty capable of handling the Guidelines myself. If I just wanted Guidelines, I'd just do collaborative writing exercises. I buy a game for the structure that Rules provide.
TLDR - YMMV and all that, but if a game is going to have lots of little exceptions - like every edition of D&D - obfuscating their mechanical implementation seems like a bad way to speed up the game.
If the GM thought those actions should be penalized for wearing a cestus, they could make a ruling. GMs should always be /able/ to make a ruling. I just dislike rules that /require/ it.
And, honestly, my position doesn't intersect with number of rules all that much. I tend to play games now that have much, much lighter rules systems than D&D has /ever/ had, and none of those games try to rely on RAI - everything rules-wise is laid out in pretty direct mechanical language. Take a look at Fate Accelerated for an example of such a game. Contrast with lighter versions of D&D - they replace mechanical weight with "situational" weight (for lack of a better term - I refer here, again, to the need to make a ruling instead of just resolving a rule).
Let me put it another way; I'm talking about the difference between Rules and Guidelines. Rules should, given one input, have exactly one output. Guidelines allow for more variance. When I purchase a game, I want a RULEbook - I am pretty capable of handling the Guidelines myself. If I just wanted Guidelines, I'd just do collaborative writing exercises. I buy a game for the structure that Rules provide.
TLDR - YMMV and all that, but if a game is going to have lots of little exceptions - like every edition of D&D - obfuscating their mechanical implementation seems like a bad way to speed up the game.
pming
Legend
Hiya.
Stealth is DEX based...that'd be what is used to "move without being noticed". But anyway, the thing is that a rule can't be too specific. If it is, then ALL the rules have to be just as specific. Then you end up with combat rules that put Phoenix Command to shame. With the cestus thing...if there were rules for it saying "All DEX based skills", you get into some pretty odd situations...like trying to sneak down that cobblestone street. Why would wearing cesti have any effect on how 'sneaky' you can be? The rule for cesti being "more specific" by listing DEX as a specific thing hinders (skill wise) the game from the perspective of maintaining the suspension of disbelief. So, specifically mentioning DEX would actually cause more problems than it solves. The rule would have to mention "DEX based skills where manual dexterity is key". However, that specifically infers that manual dexterity is hindered...leading once again back to the whole "drink a potion", "draw a map", "climb a rope" problem as there are no skills for doing those things...yet trying to do them while wearing cesti should incur some sort of penalty, yet they don't as per the rules. ...and we're back to square one where the DM is making something up to fit the situation. IMHO, it's best for the rule to be simple and (possibly) vague, leaving the mechanical specifics up to the DM.
Ok, I took a look at Fate Accelerated. How do you figure this game is "more clear" with regards to mechanical rules? Is it because there are, like, 4 things you can do in the game? (Create and Advantage, Overcome, Attack, Defend). Each of those has a specific description of the four 'success levels' (Fail/Tie/Succeed/Succeed with Style). That said, there doesn't seem to be any mechanical rules for figuring out any specifics. For example, how would a thief sneak up on a guard and try and club them in the back of the head with a blackjack to knock them out quietly? All I can figure out from just the rules is the thief would use his Sneaky aspect to approach the guard (does the guard get a chance to notice the thief, or is this all taken care of in the theifs roll?...but against what "target number"?...?). Lets say he sneaks up on the guard unnoticed..does the thief just automatically do it? Or does he roll an attack? Does the guard get a chance to defend (probably not)? What bonuses does the thief have for attacking from behind, unnoticed? My flipping through the FA PDF didn't yeild any rules for handling any of this past the "Yeah, just decide how hard it is and roll some dice then make up the outcome based on that roll". All fine and dandy, but hardly "rules mechanic clear", IMHO. Can you educate me on this whole "FA has clear rule mechanics", because my brain just can't see it.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Stealth is DEX based...that'd be what is used to "move without being noticed". But anyway, the thing is that a rule can't be too specific. If it is, then ALL the rules have to be just as specific. Then you end up with combat rules that put Phoenix Command to shame.
With the cestus thing...if there were rules for it saying "All DEX based skills", you get into some pretty odd situations...like trying to sneak down that cobblestone street. Why would wearing cesti have any effect on how 'sneaky' you can be? The rule for cesti being "more specific" by listing DEX as a specific thing hinders (skill wise) the game from the perspective of maintaining the suspension of disbelief. So, specifically mentioning DEX would actually cause more problems than it solves. The rule would have to mention "DEX based skills where manual dexterity is key". However, that specifically infers that manual dexterity is hindered...leading once again back to the whole "drink a potion", "draw a map", "climb a rope" problem as there are no skills for doing those things...yet trying to do them while wearing cesti should incur some sort of penalty, yet they don't as per the rules. ...and we're back to square one where the DM is making something up to fit the situation. IMHO, it's best for the rule to be simple and (possibly) vague, leaving the mechanical specifics up to the DM.Siberys said:
Ok, I took a look at Fate Accelerated. How do you figure this game is "more clear" with regards to mechanical rules? Is it because there are, like, 4 things you can do in the game? (Create and Advantage, Overcome, Attack, Defend). Each of those has a specific description of the four 'success levels' (Fail/Tie/Succeed/Succeed with Style). That said, there doesn't seem to be any mechanical rules for figuring out any specifics. For example, how would a thief sneak up on a guard and try and club them in the back of the head with a blackjack to knock them out quietly? All I can figure out from just the rules is the thief would use his Sneaky aspect to approach the guard (does the guard get a chance to notice the thief, or is this all taken care of in the theifs roll?...but against what "target number"?...?). Lets say he sneaks up on the guard unnoticed..does the thief just automatically do it? Or does he roll an attack? Does the guard get a chance to defend (probably not)? What bonuses does the thief have for attacking from behind, unnoticed? My flipping through the FA PDF didn't yeild any rules for handling any of this past the "Yeah, just decide how hard it is and roll some dice then make up the outcome based on that roll". All fine and dandy, but hardly "rules mechanic clear", IMHO. Can you educate me on this whole "FA has clear rule mechanics", because my brain just can't see it.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Siberys
Adventurer
If the thief wanted a bonus to an attack for sneaking up, they would first use Create Advantage to set up that situation, then use the free invoke (assuming the succeeded) to get a bonus on their attack. As long as they were being Sneaky, they'd roll Sneaky. That's all orthogonal, though. Notice how for none of that I have to go into RAI? You pick a rules-element to represent your action, use it, and then apply its result. Rinse, wash, repeat.
The point is; FAE only provides Rules. There are no Guidelines. Notice how I capitalize them? When I say Guidelines-with-capital-G, I mean "Rules that require the use of RAI." They don't exist for FAE. I can provide them myself much more consistently than if I was trying to internalize a game system's built-in Guidelines.
The difference between the cestus-as-written and my hypothetical fix is one of burden. The former places a large amount of unnecessary burden on the player (to double-check how the rules work with their GM, possibly multiple times if they play with multiple GMs) and on the GM (to make a ruling in the first place). The latter only burdens anyone with a ruling if the GM decides they need one. To put it shortly; this is the stuff I'm paying the game designer to do. I have enough other stuff on my plate.
You can make clear, direct, non-exception based rules; I flip a coin. If I get heads, I succeed, if I get tails, I fail. Nowhere near Phoenix Command level, aye? Probably not fulfilling for the vast majority of cases, but it should serve to illustrate a point; rules complexity has no bearing on RAW or RAI. You can have simple, RAW-driven rulesets and complex, RAI-driven ones. I don't care if a game is simple or complex; I /do/ care if it's RAW or RAI-driven, because that's work I shouldn't be required to do to use a game.
The point is; FAE only provides Rules. There are no Guidelines. Notice how I capitalize them? When I say Guidelines-with-capital-G, I mean "Rules that require the use of RAI." They don't exist for FAE. I can provide them myself much more consistently than if I was trying to internalize a game system's built-in Guidelines.
The difference between the cestus-as-written and my hypothetical fix is one of burden. The former places a large amount of unnecessary burden on the player (to double-check how the rules work with their GM, possibly multiple times if they play with multiple GMs) and on the GM (to make a ruling in the first place). The latter only burdens anyone with a ruling if the GM decides they need one. To put it shortly; this is the stuff I'm paying the game designer to do. I have enough other stuff on my plate.
You can make clear, direct, non-exception based rules; I flip a coin. If I get heads, I succeed, if I get tails, I fail. Nowhere near Phoenix Command level, aye? Probably not fulfilling for the vast majority of cases, but it should serve to illustrate a point; rules complexity has no bearing on RAW or RAI. You can have simple, RAW-driven rulesets and complex, RAI-driven ones. I don't care if a game is simple or complex; I /do/ care if it's RAW or RAI-driven, because that's work I shouldn't be required to do to use a game.
Similar Threads
