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

[Derren]

The issue is relying on "fixes during play." A DM should not rely on it. A DM should be knowledgable of most of the common rules issues and describe their fices well ahead of time.

It hasn't anything to do with fixes, but just how people interpret the word "afflict".

 

[Paraxis]

Hiya.

With regards to the whole "player expects X, DM says Y...now player is screwed/upset" thing.

If a player has a character that relies primarily on some particular "schtick", the moment his butt hits the seat he should ask the DM how certain rules are applied. For the 'thunder cleric' example mentioned above, the *player* needs to ask the DM how he interprets X, Y and Z. For the thief trying to do the shadow-attack-backtoshadow thing...definitely ask the DM. If you are playing with a new DM, s/he doesn't know what your characters method operandi is...so it's your job to inform them so you all know what to expect. If it turns out to mess with your perfectly chosen skills/stats/feats/whatever, then you have time to adjust your play style...or at least you know what to expect.

Sure if you are going to build a character for an ongoing campaign with the same DM you should ask how certain things interact, but isn't easier to just have good well written rules that are the standard and everyone knows how they should interact with each other so that new players don't have to play 20 questions with the DM about ok what about this exploit? no, ok what about this build? this feat combination here? how do you adjudicate X?

Besides, if someone has built a character around some particular "build", "tactical method", or "rules exploitation"...then finds himself in a game where that's just not going to work because of the DM...well, that's not the DM or the rules being "bad". Maybe the player should have concentrated on making an interesting and in-depth character, and not just a collection of specific stats and abilities. If you want to do the whole "perfect build" thing...5e isn't for you (generic 'you'), go look at 3.x/PF/4e (it seems to be built perfectly for that).

5e is very much for me, and when I play I always build, exploit, power game, min/max my characters and have done so since 1e days. Your way of making characters is not any better or more fun than mine, so maybe you should get off your high horse there buddy. As an aside, my min/maxed build characters do have interesting and in-depth backstories and personalities. You can roleplay and rollplay at the same time, especially considering all the building/tweaking/exploiting/min-maxing happens away from the gametable, not when everyone is together and roleplaying.

So lets not tell people they are playing wrong or playing the wrong game.

 

[Minigiant]

It hasn't anything to do with fixes, but just how people interpret the word "afflict".

If the player brings a PC who can "afflict", the onus is one the DM to define "affict" before play.

The second I show the DM that I prepared Contagion, he or she should have before or right then explain his adjudication.


Adjudication upon casting should be for improvised actions, crazy stuff, and the things the game never intended to cover.

 

[Mistwell]

Several posters have flat out said that you automatically should trust the DM. I asked above if that trust was a two way street.

Yes, of course. Again, you're playing with friends, you should trust them to not be jerks. And if you are playing with strangers they are your peers, at a public event likely, and so you should go in assuming they are trustworthy adults (or adult enough to participate in this kind of game). But yes the initial basis of trust isn't in the rules - the rules could be for any RPG. The initial trust is because you're adults willingly participating in a game for entertainment, likely with friends.

Most people seem to have no trouble with organized play as well, for any RPG, regardless of how rules-intensive or rules-lite or rules-clear or rules-vague. If you find you're repeatedly having trouble with organized play, stop doing organized play and focus on creating your own game with your own friends. And if you don't have any friends, or friends willing to play with you - that probably says you need to work on that more.

On some level, when people repeatedly have trouble getting along with others and they blame it on "playstyle differences" or "the rules were too vague", it's probably your own responsibility. Anyone can have one or two groups that just don't work out, but if it's happening a lot and you feel it's so dominant in your experiences that you want to turn to "the rules" for a basis in mutual trust, odds are the rules (regardless of the RPG) won't help either.

And that goes for the whole group, Players and GM/DM. It's not an adversarial game...there are no "two sides" there, you're all playing the game together.

 

[Trainz]

It's worth mentioning that the dawn of 3E was just a titch prior to the spread of internet forums; the only real D&D community online that I remember from that period was the Usenet newsgroup rec.games.frp.dnd.

I remember those usenet days fondly, as I remember your insights and the good laughs we had.

Me, I'm seeing the shift as a refreshing change, but one that I know carries with it its own inherent issues. The min/maxers will still min/max and cause problems for games they play in, they'll just have to go about doing it in a different way.

After the rules bloat of 3.5, and the accounting nightmare that 4th ed was, I'm definitely having a nerdgasm, so is my group.

And once the splatbooks start getting churned out...

We don't need no stinkin' splatbooks, but I'm going to buy them all the same.

 

[Eric V]

For example, Attack + Hide every turn doesn't normally work in my 5e game. But a player wanted to do this. So I created a shadowdancer subclass for him. Other PCs can't attack+hide vs the same guy over and over. But HE can.

Just out of curiosity, do you not allow Rogues of level 2+ to use their bonus action to Hide after having made an attack and a move?

 

[Authweight]

The issue with RAI is that the I part is often nowhere near as clear as some people think it is. A good example of this was an argument I saw here about whether a monk should be able to knock the tarrasque prone with one of his ki powers. By RAW, he clearly could. A lot of people argued that this was patently ridiculous and abusive, but just as many felt that the result was entirely intentional and desirable.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to house rule things to fit their own game. But it bothers me a lot when people get called munchkins for just wanting to go by the rules in the book. I feel that house rules should be stated up front. I also feel that if a GM house rules something in the middle of a game, any affected players should be allowed the chance to switch their character in response to the new ruling.

I don't like the attitude that says the GM can just do what they want and everyone else has to deal with it. For this reason, the concept of RAW is important. Maybe you'll play it differently at your table, but we can all start with RAW as a baseline so we can make it clear what changes are being implemented before they come up in play.

Also, clear rules don't have to take away GM initiative. A rule can simply say, "the GM may decide what this means." That's okay - it is both clear and open-ended. What is bad is when a rule is open-ended because it is phrased poorly. That leads to unnecessary conflict. If you don't want there to be a RAW ruling on something, just say so in the rules, don't get there by creating confusion.

 

[Thank Dog]

5e is very much for me, and when I play I always build, exploit, power game, min/max my characters and have done so since 1e days. Your way of making characters is not any better or more fun than mine, so maybe you should get off your high horse there buddy.

Then your playstyle is what is putting you into conflict with others. Blaming the system for those conflicts isn't fair or reasonable. If you're going to deliberately "exploit, power game, min/max" your characters then you have to expect some pushback from people who realise that and you can't expect the system or other players to conform to what you think the rules mean.

Playing in organised play means working within the confines of the situation. I have numerous characters that I'd like to play but not all of them suit organised play. So I do what most people would do in that situation. I don't play them.

 

[Minigiant]

Just out of curiosity, do you not allow Rogues of level 2+ to use their bonus action to Hide after having made an attack and a move?

They can attempt to use Cunning action to hide. I just rule that the people they hide from must have something at least middling distracting happening for it to even work or the rogue must continue to move while hiding.

A nearby ally of the rogue is usually enough.
But you can't simply stab an ogre, jump behind a rock, and squat there expecting the ogre to not know you are behind the rock. The ogre can't see you but your aren't hidden until something happens to make your position suspect.

 

[Aenghus]

I greatly value transparency and clarity in rules, so much so that I haven't bought 5e because it isn't transparent and clear. I want a ruleset that can be used as written without constant adjustment and tweaking. I don't expect perfection, but my sense of aesthetics can't handle sloppy rules writing, and there is loads of unnecessarily ambiguous writing in 5e.

Badly written rules are easier to ignore or overrule - I don't see this as an advantage.

I realise I place a higher value on clarity than some others. I'm just stating my opinion. YMMV

 

[Mercule]

I had a fairly long response typed up, but I realize that my opinion comes down to one thing: I think RAW has exactly as much of a place in 5E as it did in 1E, maybe a hair more. That, more than anything else, is the reason I'm excited about 5E.

I'm not sure whether that constitutes RAW having "a place" or not. I suspect the answer to that is subjective, as is the matter of whether 1E got that place right.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Sure if you are going to build a character for an ongoing campaign with the same DM you should ask how certain things interact, but isn't easier to just have good well written rules that are the standard and everyone knows how they should interact with each other so that new players don't have to play 20 questions with the DM about ok what about this exploit? no, ok what about this build? this feat combination here? how do you adjudicate X?

In short, no. It's better for the players to be 'forced' to interact with the DM. Always. It is never, IMHO, "better" for the DM to have virtually no say in the matter. Obviously your play style differs widely from mine (and others, appearently).

5e is very much for me, and when I play I always build, exploit, power game, min/max my characters and have done so since 1e days. Your way of making characters is not any better or more fun than mine, so maybe you should get off your high horse there buddy. As an aside, my min/maxed build characters do have interesting and in-depth backstories and personalities. You can roleplay and rollplay at the same time, especially considering all the building/tweaking/exploiting/min-maxing happens away from the gametable, not when everyone is together and roleplaying.

So lets not tell people they are playing wrong or playing the wrong game.

As Thank Dog said above...it's not 5e you have a problem with, its that DM's are not likely to let you "get away" with your preferred style of power gaming. The rules are written to specifically back up the DM and not you (the player); you're angry about that. And I'll stand by my initial statement...maybe 5e isn't for you. I suspect that unless you find a DM who also likes the whole "power game min/max" thing, you will be constantly annoyed with various DM's rules...because they are likely to be slightly to vastly different from others.

I'm not trying to be on any 'high horse'; I'm simply stating that non-specific/exact wording is a GOOD thing, and I'm pleased as punch that 5e is written that way. Feel free to play any way you like, but don't blame the rules for your lack of being able to min/max/power-build a character and "get away with it by pointing to specificity worded rules". That's not in the spriit of 5e from what I can see. If you want to min/max your guy, do so with the aid of your DM. That is how the game is written...massive input from the DM. Maybe think of the rules as an extension of the DM...and not the DM being an extension of the rules (if that makes any sense).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Minigiant]

Hiya.



In short, no. It's better for the players to be 'forced' to interact with the DM. Always. It is never, IMHO, "better" for the DM to have virtually no say in the matter. Obviously your play style differs widely from mine (and others, appearently).




As Thank Dog said above...it's not 5e you have a problem with, its that DM's are not likely to let you "get away" with your preferred style of power gaming. The rules are written to specifically back up the DM and not you (the player); you're angry about that. And I'll stand by my initial statement...maybe 5e isn't for you. I suspect that unless you find a DM who also likes the whole "power game min/max" thing, you will be constantly annoyed with various DM's rules...because they are likely to be slightly to vastly different from others.

I'm not trying to be on any 'high horse'; I'm simply stating that non-specific/exact wording is a GOOD thing, and I'm pleased as punch that 5e is written that way. Feel free to play any way you like, but don't blame the rules for your lack of being able to min/max/power-build a character and "get away with it by pointing to specificity worded rules". That's not in the spriit of 5e from what I can see. If you want to min/max your guy, do so with the aid of your DM. That is how the game is written...massive input from the DM. Maybe think of the rules as an extension of the DM...and not the DM being an extension of the rules (if that makes any sense).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

The issue isn't about powergaming.
It is about clarity and when clarification are made.

If a player makes a design choice which is a major aspect of the character, the DM should clarify how that aspect of the PC is ruled in the most common usages of the feature before play. Some things will slip the cracks but the majority of common stuff should be hashed out before play.

 

[Thank Dog]

I want a ruleset that can be used as written without constant adjustment and tweaking.

I probably did the discussion a disservice by saying that the rules are vague. I don't think they're vague so much as open to multiple interpretations. That doesn't really require adjustment or tweaking, it just requires a common understanding.

The funny thing is that part of the reason why I started this thread was that most rules that are contentious and being discussed widely, I find quite clear and obvious as to their RAW and RAI and am constantly surprised that people don't see the rules as obvious as I think they are. During discussions I can see why people are interpreting things the way they do, I merely think they're interpreting them either favourably (for themselves) or misinterpreting, or simply missing some aspects of an interpretation. The fact that I can come away with an interpretation that I think is entirely RAW & RAI, whilst other people can do the same but with different interpretations made me think that maybe this was intentional on the designers part, in order to allow multiple interpretations so as to cater to a wider array of gaming styles which, after all, was one of the design intents of this edition.

 

[Hussar]

I probably did the discussion a disservice by saying that the rules are vague. I don't think they're vague so much as open to multiple interpretations. That doesn't really require adjustment or tweaking, it just requires a common understanding.

The funny thing is that part of the reason why I started this thread was that most rules that are contentious and being discussed widely, I find quite clear and obvious as to their RAW and RAI and am constantly surprised that people don't see the rules as obvious as I think they are. During discussions I can see why people are interpreting things the way they do, I merely think they're interpreting them either favourably (for themselves) or misinterpreting, or simply missing some aspects of an interpretation. The fact that I can come away with an interpretation that I think is entirely RAW & RAI, whilst other people can do the same but with different interpretations made me think that maybe this was intentional on the designers part, in order to allow multiple interpretations so as to cater to a wider array of gaming styles which, after all, was one of the design intents of this edition.

Ok, now, let's take that as a starting point. You think the rules are perfectly clear and you believe that the other side is either being disingenuous or misinterpreting. You do not accept the idea that their interpretation as valid.

Now, what do you propose to do as a player when the DM disagrees with you? You state right here that you don't think that the DM is right. So, what is your reaction to a DM who interprets things differently than you do?

The rules are written to specifically back up the DM and not you (the player); you're angry about that.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?365146-Does-RAW-have-a-place-in-5e/page8#ixzz3EeizQHnH

Umm, what? Since when are the rules written specifically to back up the DM? The rules are there to make sure that everyone at the table is on the same page, as far as I am concerned. The rules are never, ever a DM only thing at my table and I would be very, very leery of sitting down at any table where the DM feels that the rules are "his" or "hers" and not "ours".

 

[Mistwell]

Ok, now, let's take that as a starting point. You think the rules are perfectly clear and you believe that the other side is either being disingenuous or misinterpreting. You do not accept the idea that their interpretation as valid.

Now, what do you propose to do as a player when the DM disagrees with you? You state right here that you don't think that the DM is right. So, what is your reaction to a DM who interprets things differently than you do?



Umm, what? Since when are the rules written specifically to back up the DM? The rules are there to make sure that everyone at the table is on the same page, as far as I am concerned. The rules are never, ever a DM only thing at my table and I would be very, very leery of sitting down at any table where the DM feels that the rules are "his" or "hers" and not "ours".

Er...two of the three books are DM-only books, and the third is very frequently used by DMs. You're not supposed to be on the same page as the DM when it comes to monsters or anything in the DMG.

 

[Thank Dog]

Now, what do you propose to do as a player when the DM disagrees with you? You state right here that you don't think that the DM is right. So, what is your reaction to a DM who interprets things differently than you do?

Like, you mean, with pretty much every game I join and play in? Gee, I don't know. I guess... I guess I just deal with it and either play or don't play, depending on how much elf-rules bother me.

 

[Paraxis]

Then your playstyle is what is putting you into conflict with others. Blaming the system for those conflicts isn't fair or reasonable. If you're going to deliberately "exploit, power game, min/max" your characters then you have to expect some pushback from people who realise that and you can't expect the system or other players to conform to what you think the rules mean.

Playing in organised play means working within the confines of the situation. I have numerous characters that I'd like to play but not all of them suit organised play. So I do what most people would do in that situation. I don't play them.

I don't normally have conflicts, when I run the rules work as close to RAW as they can and when I have to adjudicate things I do it from a gamist standpoint not some simulation or narrativist one, basicly what is balanced and fair. When I play I tend to be the alpha of the group so if there is any conflict it might be with the DM but I am persuasive. So I guess I do expect the system and other players to conform to what I think the rules mean when there is ambiguity, but what I want is no ambiguity to begin with.

I don't play in organized play but do sometimes get into or start pick up games on roll20 for either one shots or short 5-8 session adventures, all I am saying is consistency is nice.

I am a rules lawyer, gamist, powergamer, min/maxer and proud. None of that makes me any less of a roleplayer than someone who is story first and plays pointless in combat characters that takes skills like underwater basket weaving because it fits their character concept.

 

[aramis erak]

Several posters have flat out said that you automatically should trust the DM. I asked above if that trust was a two way street.

DM's need to trust that their players aren't out to make their lives hell, unless proven otherwise.
DM's need to trust that their players use the character approved, unless proven otherwise.
DM's should trust players to be rollling relatively fair dice, unless there's good reason to suspect otherwise.

Players should trust that the rest of the group are being reasonable in their approach to rules.
Players should trust that the DM is trying to be fair.
Players should be able to trust that no other player is there just to spoil their fun.

DM's need to try to be fair, unbiased, and run an amusing game, for whatever value of Amusing is acceptable to everyone in the group.
Players should realize that DM's can't always be fair, consistent, and amusing all at the same time, and that if rules mistakes are made, they are either unintentional or are for specific effects.

So, yeah, the whole trust is a two way, not entirely balanced, street.

 

[Hussar]

Like, you mean, with pretty much every game I join and play in? Gee, I don't know. I guess... I guess I just deal with it and either play or don't play, depending on how much elf-rules bother me.

So that's the options? Either put up and shut up, even though you believe the DM is wrong, or walk?

Yeah, I'm glad my days of that kind of gaming are long behind me.