D&D (2024) Exception-Based Design in D&D: When Rules Enable Rule Lawyers

[OptionalRule]

Hey everyone! Just posted a new analysis looking at how 5e's design philosophy might actually encourage "rules lawyer" behavior at our tables. This isn't another "rules lawyers bad" rant - instead, I dive into how the exception-based structure of 5e (especially in the 2024 revision) shapes player behavior and table dynamics.

Some key points:

• How exception-based design differs from general principle design
• Why the 2024 edition might amplify these dynamics
• Practical tips for both DMs and players to work with (not against) the system
• Ways to maintain game flow without sacrificing mechanical depth

Exception Based Design in D&D - When Rules Enable Rule Lawyers

Curious to hear others' experiences with this, especially from folks who've been playing since earlier editions. How do you handle the increasing complexity of exception stacks at your table?

 

[aco175]

A couple minor spelling mistakes in the first few paragraphs. Before too many people start reading things.

Rogue/Rouge

Fighting/Fighiting

I like the idea of the essay. With more general rules, there are more ideas on how they work. Look at some of the threads we have had when the PHB came out and we did not have the DMG, and now without the MM. How does hiding work and what is the invisibly condition? There are several.

 

[OptionalRule]

A couple minor spelling mistakes in the first few paragraphs. Before too many people start reading things.

View attachment 387031
Rogue/Rouge


View attachment 387032

Fighting/Fighiting

I like the idea of the essay. With more general rules, there are more ideas on how they work. Look at some of the threads we have had when the PHB came out and we did not have the DMG, and now without the MM. How does hiding work and what is the invisibly condition? There are several.

Ha! Thank you. It's embarassing but I appreciate the heads up.

 

[OptionalRule]

Also, yes the invisibility condition came to mine a bit. There are things that are just outright confusing. Something about that and other elements, and that way the discussion is framed around it seemed odd to me. It occured to me late that there's a shift in the fundamental assumptions about how rules are viewed and debated. At least that's what I noticed.

Sparked by a crappy statment on twitter that was basically "5e doesn't encourage this, you're an idiot" so I just wrote this up this afternoon instead of thinking about the state of the world. Cheers!

 

[Parmandur]

Quite the opposite, really.

 

[Charlaquin]

Exceptions-based design is just a more technical jargon-y way of saying “specific beats general.” It’s how all versions of D&D, and indeed, almost all games, are designed.

 

[Lanefan]

Exceptions-based design is just a more technical jargon-y way of saying “specific beats general.” It’s how all versions of D&D, and indeed, almost all games, are designed.

With the variables being:

a) how much of the rule-set is exceptions vs how much is intended to be handled by the "generals" (1e was nearly all exceptions with only a rudimentary framework of generals, WotC-era wants generals to do much more of the work)
b) how often the exceptions directly or indirectly conflict with the generals
c) how clearly those conflicts in b) are written up and explained

5e often seems to trip up on c).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Hey everyone! Just posted a new analysis looking at how 5e's design philosophy might actually encourage "rules lawyer" behavior at our tables. This isn't another "rules lawyers bad" rant - instead, I dive into how the exception-based structure of 5e (especially in the 2024 revision) shapes player behavior and table dynamics.

Some key points:

• How exception-based design differs from general principle design
• Why the 2024 edition might amplify these dynamics
• Practical tips for both DMs and players to work with (not against) the system
• Ways to maintain game flow without sacrificing mechanical depth

Exception Based Design in D&D - When Rules Enable Rule Lawyers

Curious to hear others' experiences with this, especially from folks who've been playing since earlier editions. How do you handle the increasing complexity of exception stacks at your table?

I think it is easier to handle crunchy systems with exception based design. In 40 years of gaming noting can prevent some rules lawyering except shutting down rules lawyers. I spend many years trying to decipher rules by Avalon Hill wargame designers meant to shut down rules lawyers and failing. Sometimes, failing to be even comprehensible.
The most useful type of rules lawyer is the one that will spot the exploit but is willing to come to a reasonable compromise.
But nothing a designer can really stop a rules lawyer.

D&D has exception-based design baked into it from the very beginning, even if the players and designers at the time did not notice, via the spell system. The spell system has always been a little bundle of exceptions to the rules. building the game this way has led to a cleaner game design framework.

What to do when a player brings up an exploit, well that depends. If it is genuinely rules legal as written I would let them use it once or twice and then out of game, I would ask will thing get boring fast or what would they think if I used it as DM and try to come up with a reasonable compromise.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Curious to hear others' experiences with this, especially from folks who've been playing since earlier editions. How do you handle the increasing complexity of exception stacks at your table?

Reading the article I mostly just felt like it was an overblown reaction to situations that theoretically could come up, but that I've never seen be a problem before. I loved your Tips for DMs and Tips for Players at the end though! That portion was very well thought out and expanding on these tips would make a great article on its own

I've played with some purposely obnoxious players before who found it fun to annoy the rest of the table with stuff like this, and it has always been really easy to shut them down. There are a few well-known game mechanic loopholes that DMs can prepare ahead of time for, by either deciding to allow it (and use it for enemies!) or implement house rules to mitigate/ban the mechanic. The rest of the time when a player thinks they came up with some innovative new exception-based loophole that will stump the DM, usually the reason no one has posted about it before is because it doesn't actually work.

For example in your Path of the Giant throwing a Rogue situation, that's just not how it works at all. A Rogue is not a weapon, and is not an item being held by the Barbarian. If the DM deems that it makes sense, the Barbarian can pick up the Rogue, making the Barbarian be an Independent Mount for the Rogue, but nothing about this qualifies the Rogue to be an infused weapon. So I guess that would be my answer for how to deal with complexity of exception stacks - out-lawyer the rules lawyers.

 

[OptionalRule]

... So I guess that would be my answer for how to deal with complexity of exception stacks - out-lawyer the rules lawyers.

My take on that follows the quote "Never wrestle a pig. After two hours you'll both be filthy and you'll realize the pig is having fun."