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

[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.