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

[Thank Dog]

So if you are a player say in the organized play program...

D&D is a home game. It's simply also used in organised play and it's up to the organised play program to come up with means to implement the system, not for the system to be geared towards satisfying the needs of organised play.

The fact that I've brought this exact issue up with the coordinators of the Adventurer's League and been soundly shouted down for even mentioning it, means that they are quite happy with the status quo and have no intention of formulating any sort of RAW guidelines. That's their choice and the game itself shouldn't be judged based on organised play requirements and nor should it be beholden to them.

 

[Hussar]

Has anyone aside from you actually said that? I know I haven't. I said it's up to the players & DM.

Well, since you asked:

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 have a hard time understanding how 'trust' is ever an issue. I guess if you are playing at tournaments or just popping in to random games here and there it might be, but I've never had this be an issue.

D&D is defined as a game with an arbitrator, a referee who's decisions are final. Everyone I've ever played with has entered the game with that understanding, and even when rulings have been different from what is spelled out in the rule books or than what is expected, no one has had a problem with the simple explanation of 'that's how things work in this world' from the DM.
/snip.

Shouldn't "My friends are not jerks" or "This guy is willing to devote the time it takes to run a game tonight for our entertainment, so I will start with the assumption he plans on making it fun" be the baseline for establishing trust? I've never needed rules for trust - trust is a human thing.

The RAW are playable - but may require some interpretation. And it's the DM's sole, exclusive, right and proper job to be that interpreter.

There's 4 right there. So, it's not like I'm the lone voice here. Several posters have flat out said that you automatically should trust the DM. I asked above if that trust was a two way street.

 

[Kai Wren]

That trust IS a two way street. I trust my players not to powergame and search for every scrap of advantage they can eke out of the rules and I trust them not to worry that I'm out to screw them over when I interpret the rules in a particular way.

However, a large part of the DM's job is to interpret the rules; just like it is a part of the player's job to know what rules apply to their character (and for the same reason: so play isn't held up any more than necessary quibbling over dice in the course of a session). Ultimately, though, the DM is the one who arbitrates and judges dice rolls, not the players. Where there is a conflict in interpretation, players should feel free to make their case - but the DM's decision must ultimately be respected.

 

[1of3]

Why? Why cannot the players interprete the rules, and the GM knows the rules for the monsters? Surely, if trust is a two-way street, that would work?

 

[Hussar]

See, that's where I typically am in my games when I DM. I fully admit that my players know the rules better than I do. They've demonstrated that fact multiple times to me. So, now I just ask my players how something works. Nine times out of ten, they're way more strict that I would ever be. In fact, it's often a case of me softening their interpretations just to keep things moving along.

I prefer it this way, myself. Let's me concentrate on the stuff that I find fun - creating scenarios, performing the NPC's, that sort of thing. I hate being the rules guy. I have a decent working knowledge of whatever system we're playing, but, I also almost always defer to my players when it comes to rules arbitration.

Heck, we had a perfect example of that in the last session, although I wasn't DMing. A question about Stealth came up, and the 5e stealth rules are ... well... not exactly exact. So, we came to a group consensus on how things should work and moved on from there. Much preferable, IMO, than expecting the DM to be able to be a game designer.

 

[Minigiant]

The part unsaid is the Rules As Desired.

Every player and DM has different goals in their play.

With RAW, both DMS and players can see what is available and pick what they want. When conflict happens, it is up to the DM to make a ruling and eventually find something that would make the players happy.

With RAI, the process is reversed. The group has to first display all their desires and the DM and players must hash it out with DM as final vote.

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.

 

[Derren]

So if you are a player say in the organized play program and you built a character around this feat, like a tempest cleric that can add thunder damage to every attack with a weapon, but by the virtue of organized play every month it is under a new DM, your power level with something as simple as your standard attack action changes so drastically it is mind boggling.

It doesn't have to be as involved as that. Just have a PC use contagion and see if the illness takes effect immediately or after 3 failed saves (two i terpretations discussed on this board).

The problem with RaI is that the DM and player can have very different interpretations. 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.

 

[Paraxis]

It doesn't have to be as involved as that. Just have a PC use contagion and see if the illness takes effect immediately or after 3 failed saves (two i terpretations discussed on this board).

The problem with RaI is that the DM and player can have very different interpretations. 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.

Exactly if my character prepares contagion expecting to use it on the big boss fight we know is coming up and suddenly the DM is all no that doesn't work right away, I am upset. Rules are important, and everyone knowing those rules are consistent is also important.

 

[Minigiant]

Exactly if my character prepares contagion expecting to use it on the big boss fight we know is coming up and suddenly the DM is all no that doesn't work right away, I am upset. Rules are important, and everyone knowing those rules are consistent is also important.

That isn't a rule issue. This can happen with RAW or RAI.

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.

The DM will not know every issue. DMs are human. But a DM should know their game, their players, and how their player's characters work. DMs are given the power and thus have the responsibility. They should inform the players of their changes and adjudications of common things before they happen. It's hard in 5e as it is new as all issues are not discovered and spread around. But as the months and years go on, "on the fly" fixes OF RAW or "on the spot" RAI should be low.

 

[pming]

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.

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).

As an aside, I think the way the rules in 5e are written is one of the best things they did, design wise. What this will do is teach DM's to actually DM and not just "run the monsters". I foresee the caliber of DM's rising significantly over the next three to five years because of this. I can see it also improving player skill, as right now player "skill" seems to be all about how well one can stack numbers; getting away from all that 3e+ stuff and back to a more 'loose and organic' style of fantasy role-playing can only improve player capability, DM capability, and campaign fun. IMHO, of course.

^_^

Paul L. Ming