Really? I kinda just thought that was regular social interaction. You know, compromise, conciliation, understanding, tolerance, acceptance?
D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?
For me, this is a huge ask. There are other RPGs that don't impose this level of detailed technical management on the GM, and I don't see it as a virtue of D&D that it does so (if it does).
I don't agree with Dausuul's characterisation of 4e - I think it leaves a lot to GM judgement - but otherwise I strongly agree with these posts.
A related issue that I have noticed in the 5e rules that I have read is a tendency to mix rules with a wargame-style precision (eg under these circumstances, you get +X AC, or you get advantage on attacks) with natural-language descriptors, which to me at least sends mixed messages: the conditional modifiers are important enough to specify to very high levels of precision, but not so important that we need precision on when they apply.
Part of the issue here is that every spell in D&D (except 4e) is its own little package of action resolution, combining natural language descriptors with wargame-style mathematical mechanics. And the designers, certainly compared to some other RPGs, give very minimal meta-commentary on what some of these spells are for. So is Contagion meant to be a "strategic"-level curse, or is it meant to be a tactical bombshell? It is almost inconceivable that the designers didn't have one or the other of these options in mind, but they tend to be somewhat coy about it.
I don't think this is a place where saying "it is up to the GM" is the appropriate response. They decided that spell X uses d6 and spell Y uses d8 for a reason; they didn't just tell the GM to choose between d4s and d12s as the mood takes him/her. If Contagion is then meant to operate in the same mechanical space as those other spells, it makes no sense not to give similarly detailed advice on how it works.
I like these posts, although I think that what Sadrik says is not true for all versions of D&D - for instance, classic D&D didn't have many moving parts at all for non-combat, non-social resolution.
When talking about rules-as-written, GM interpretation etc I think it is helpful to be clear, and realistic, about how the game plays, or at least how the designers envisage it playing. If they put in lots of little crunchy bits, presumably they expect those to be used. But what does using them consist in?
D&D has always had at least moderately intricate PC build rules (including the equipment rules as part of the PC build rules), and players are expected to make choices in relation to these rules. So there is, I think, an implicit expectation that it matters if a player spends money for better armour for his/her PC, or chooses a longer or shorter weapon (in versions of the game with weapon length), or chooses a weapon with a higher or lower damage die (in versions of the game with variable weapon damage). A GM who just ignores those rules is undermining those aspects of the game. Everything else being equal , this is probably not the best way to play D&D. (There are other RPGs out there which don't have equipment rules, or don't place so much emphasis on other aspects of PC build like spell load-out.)
Where I think the game has changed over the years is in respect of action resolution. Action resolution, both inside combat and even moreso outside of combat, is a much bigger part of the game now than it was 40 years ago. More of a player's build resources are devoted to action resolution than used to be the case. (And, conversely, exploration is less a part of the game than it once was.) GMs are expected to provide consistent adjudication on player action declarations as a key function of the game. A good DMG will give GMs advice on how this can be done, what the different approaches are. For instance, here are 3 possibilities: the GM describes the fictional situation first, then imposes appropriate DCs (this is probably the 1st ed AD&D default); the GM decides what would make a good DC, and then describes the fictional situation in an appropriate way (this is probably the 4e default); the GM describes he fictional situation first and then adjudicates the d20 roll based on what is "good for the story" without worrying about any correspondence between the DC and the fiction (at least in my experience this was often the 2nd ed AD&D default).
How rules are handled varies across these (and other) approaches. Rather than insisting in the abstract on "RAW" or "rules as interpreted/applied", I think it is more helpful for the game advice to call out the different approaches, talk about some of their pros and cons, and what sorts of impact on play and player attitudes they might have. For instance, a GM who adopts the third approach above might be better suited to players who build their PCs to "express a story" about the character, rather than players who build their PCs to generate resources that they can then deploy to increase their chances of success in action resolution.
For a lot of players, D&D is obviously adversarial - just look at the current "death and consequences" thread, for instance. For a significant number of D&Ders (I can't say whether or not they are a majority, but they're clearly not a tiny minority), one of the most important jobs of the players is to deploy the resources they obtain from build plus "clever play" to overcome the challenges (often but not always NPCs and monsters) which the GM has thought up and is playing as the PCs' opponents.
In that sort of play, eking out every scrap of advantage is completely rational. If you read old play reports (say in Dragon magazine), it seems to me that this was exactly how Gygax and other earlier players approached the game. That's why, in Gygaxian D&D and AD&D, regulating what equipment and spells the players gained access to was such an important part of the GM's job (because these build elements were the main resources for players).
The complication for more modern versions of the game is that build elements have become more complex, and less obviously subject to GM control because no longer acquired primarily through PC actions in the fiction but rather as part of generic PC build rules (eg feats, skills, class features), but the game still gives no reason for many players not to try and eke out every bonus.
Hopefully the DMG will have a good discussion of this issue too, and the range of options. For instance, if the players throttle back will the GM compensate by fudging? This is one well-known approach, though obviously not one that appeals to everyone. Or will the GM play the opposition at full bore, letting the dice fall where they may, but use "fail-forward" techniques to reassure the players that more relaxed or even sub-optimal choices on their part don't have to be game-ending? In my view, a good book of GMing advice will cover these and other possible approaches, changing the focus from "RAW vs RAI" to "What do we want to get out of this game, and by way of what techniques, and what does that mean for our approach to the rules?"
prosfilaes
Adventurer
Because cases where there is no DM-player disagreement aren't interesting. Same reason "man bites dog" is news, but "man pets dog" isn't.
I think it's distracting to bring up bad faith in a question of RAW versus common sense. Most players arguing in bad faith are just as happy to argue that the weights in the PHB are wrong and that that beggar could not have carried his sword off if needs be.
If arguing RAW, if the DM disagrees with me, at least the DM probably had no reason to know that I might have a different interpretation. If arguing common sense, the DM had no reason to expect that I could anticipate what their ruling would be. A DM who audited character sheets and looked ahead of time to tell me what isn't RAW would be less of a problem, but most 3.5/Pathfinder DMs I've played with don't have the time to know everyone's character like that. 5e should be easier to do that, but it's still work.
prosfilaes
Adventurer
If I know what rules are in question, then I can do so, but I quite likely won't know what rules are in question. What are likely rules disagreements certainly seems like quite esoteric knowledge.
If my DM wants to look at my character sheet, they're welcome to. But I don't get the impression that DMs who don't ask for my character sheet are really all that interested in hearing how awesome my character's eldritch blast is, to the point that I actively expect DMs to tune it out, including anything that might come up in play.
(1) That's like saying that Gary Kasparov should have learned games besides chess, or Simo Häyhä shouldn't have spent all that time playing with guns. A lot of people who go down in history as mindboggling amazing do so because they were monomaniacal about their abilities.
(2) I've played this game before, made an interesting and in-depth character that never got to use half his skills and never interacted with anyone from his back story, and left me a lot of time to work on my next character while other people were effectively participating in the majority of the game, that is, the battles. If I want to have fun, I've found that first and foremost, I've got to worry about how I kick monster ass.
Zaran
Adventurer
I think anyone reading a spell description will notice that this game is just as much RAW as 4e if not more so. When every "At Higher Levels." portion of a spell is so RAW that they are redundant. It really throws me. Just like when every spell says "every creature you can see within range". That sort of thing should be said once in the beginning of the spells and never said again. Only exceptions should be stated afterwards.
Hussar
Legend
There's an additional issue when it comes to RAI. Not that this is always the case, just a potential issue. Whenever RAI arguments come up, they sometimes stray into Oberoni Fallacy territory. It's not a problem with the mechanics, the problem lies with a particular interpretation, therefore, that interpretation is wrong.
IOW, vague rules become an excuse for poor game design. It's not that the rules are poorly written, it's just that I'm not smart enough/good enough/handsome enough to run the game properly and if I was just a better DM, then the problem would go away.
Looking back at my 2e books, I realise that I had to go through every single supplement with a fine tooth comb because there were just so many badly written rules in the supplements. Not surprising given their production schedule that very, VERY little play testing was ever done on anything. So every problem got dumped into the group's lap to figure out.
Allowing flexibility and a bit of vagueness in the rules in no excuse for bad rules.
IOW, vague rules become an excuse for poor game design. It's not that the rules are poorly written, it's just that I'm not smart enough/good enough/handsome enough to run the game properly and if I was just a better DM, then the problem would go away.
Looking back at my 2e books, I realise that I had to go through every single supplement with a fine tooth comb because there were just so many badly written rules in the supplements. Not surprising given their production schedule that very, VERY little play testing was ever done on anything. So every problem got dumped into the group's lap to figure out.
Allowing flexibility and a bit of vagueness in the rules in no excuse for bad rules.
I find the opposite, due to being wordy, more wiggle room than X damage, push a piece of plastic around, and impose an easily shrugged off condition.
Similar Threads
