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

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I'm not sure why you're saying this - it's neither accurate (except re: "all versions of D&D"), nor informative, nor contributes anything at all to the discussion. First off, it's not "more jargon-y", it's more specific and frankly more useful. Secondly, no, it's not how how "almost all" games are designed in any meaningful sense - obviously with any set of rules or laws, there will be instances where specific beats general, but how heavily that is a part of a game's design varies to a huge degree. There are games where the vast majority of the rules that you use to play, that vast majority of the time, fit a structure such that general rules do apply most of the time, and specific exceptions are rare to very rare. At the other end of the spectrum, you have games like D&D, where pretty much every character is in large part just a big bundle of exceptions. It's hard to think of any TTRPG which pushes "exception-based" design more harder than D&D (some card-based games and board games do go further - whereas most war games rely pretty hard on general rules with only a small number of exceptions). Not only is class design that way, the spell design is particularly that way - more so in 5E than 3E even - and it's very much intentional, with stuff like fireball not even matching expected damage progressions, but beating it.

It's also part of what makes D&D relatively more accessible to players (but can give more of a headache to DMs) than similarly complex but less exception-based TTRPGs, because the end result is that any given player usually has to understand significantly fewer general rules.

As this article discusses, it does open up the rules to potentially more "legal issues" as a number of exceptions can sometimes stack together to create an issue, and it asks a bit more from the DM in terms of having to deal with a large number of potentially conflicting exceptions at times. 5E, I would say, isn't as bad for this as the previous two editions of D&D as 5E simply has a smaller number of trouble-making Feats and specific abilities, and the spells in 5E tend to be a "toned down" and narrower in function than 3E.

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 haven't really found it to be a problem except, ironically, where Crawford has made some kind of odd, non-binding Sage Advice ruling on an exception, which is, uh, how to put this, um, obviously wrong? Obviously silly? A couple of times a player has been like "apparently it works like this when these conflicting exceptions apply" and quoted Sage Advice, and I've had to be, like, absolutely not, no it doesn't.

Also, you can pretty easily find the worst possible exception stacks just by going to RPGBot and looking at the optimization guides for the class/subclasses the PCs are playing. If there is any particularly obnoxious exception stack, they will have highlighted it there, so you can anticipate it and take whatever action, if any is needed. Usually none is needed, it's just useful to know about it.

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.

I haven't found any need with 5E to actually do either of those. There have been other games with exception stacks so bad I needed a house rule (rather than just a ruling on a specific exception), but not 5E. Usually I find it's just a matter of being aware that PC X can do thing Y.

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.

This I agree with. I tend to be familiar with "potential but failed" exception-based loopholes thanks to this site and others (as such things often attract a lot of discussion), and if RPGBot and similar haven't mentioned something, usually just carefully reading the rules involved will indeed reveal that it doesn't work because of some specific clause within those rules.

 

[clearstream]

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?

The article appears to me to assert a false dichotomy. It proposes that

"Rather than providing broad, flexible guidelines that empower creative play, the system builds character capabilities through stacks of specific exceptions to basic rules."​

This seems to ignore the foundational structure of 5e - the broad, flexible rules that empower creative play - which is surprising to me as it begs the question "exception to what?". Generally, exceptions supply each character with specific opportunities to say what happens next in regard to some facets of the narrative.

Regarding rule 0 -- assuming you want to count it part of core (it isn't in core) -- arguing that a rule that says "only do this if its fun" isn't fun if you use it in ways that aren't fun, seems self-defeating on two counts. Supposing the rule to be not fun in the ways described, 1) why incorporate it? and 2) those ways cannot amount to properly implementing the rule. The problem is self-inflicted.

Finally, the advice in Finding Balance and the Tips, while reasonable mirrors advice already given in the 2024 DMG.

 

[clearstream]

It's hard to think of any TTRPG which pushes "exception-based" design more harder than D&D

I'd list here some PbtA games. The Hero System. Cortex. Any game in which there is a core (generally speaking, a set of basic parameters, an incremental scale, a resolution method, some currencies) and then a set of frequently archetype-specific exceptions.

A problem with making this argument is that anyone worried about exceptions has a motive to argue that their exceptions aren't exceptions somehow... so one has to first robustly and normatively define what counts as an "exception".

I haven't really found it to be a problem except, ironically, where Crawford has made some kind of odd, non-binding Sage Advice ruling on an exception, which is, uh, how to put this, um, obviously wrong? Obviously silly? A couple of times a player has been like "apparently it works like this when these conflicting exceptions apply" and quoted Sage Advice, and I've had to be, like, absolutely not, no it doesn't.

Very true, such as the frankly bonkers ruling on interrupting long rests (corrected in 2024 PHB thank goodness.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd list here some PbtA games. The Hero System. Cortex. Any game in which there is a core (generally speaking, a set of basic parameters, an incremental scale, a resolution method, some currencies) and then a set of frequently archetype-specific exceptions.

I was thinking about PbtA and I honestly don't think any PtbA game I've personally played does push exceptions as far as 5E does (that doesn't mean such a game doesn't exist though). HERO is odd one to mention for me - whilst it does use exception-based design, it makes heavy use of general rules, including general rules for designing powers which might be perceived as exceptions but I don't think really are because they comply with the general rules (except a few that don't). Cortex I don't know enough about to comment, despite having designed a decent Mass Effect RPG with Cortex Prime, but I do remember the Marvel Cortex RPG being pretty exception heavy!

A problem with making this argument is that anyone worried about exceptions has a motive to argue that their exceptions aren't exceptions somehow... so one has to first robustly and normatively define what counts as an "exception".

Well yeah, and even if there's no motivation re: exceptions not being exceptions (I certainly don't like or dislike a game based on whether it's exception-based - though more games I really like are exception-based than exception-avoiding!), even if you're trying to be objective, I do think a robust definition of exception would be useful (c.f. you including HERO as a far-out exception game where I'd say it was more towards the middle, albeit more on the exception side maybe). And that'd be a thread to itself!

 

[clearstream]

HERO is odd one to mention for me - whilst it does use exception-based design, it makes heavy use of general rules, including general rules for designing powers which might be perceived as exceptions but I don't think really are because they comply with the general rules (except a few that don't).

Skills are pretty much all exceptions (like, P as an exception can fix a broken pipe, but there is no general rule governing pipes, how they break, and how they are fixed.)

With powers there are modules that define the basic structure of a coherent group of actions (like casting images), and then one creates a a bunch of powers that draw on that module. Those modules can extend to multiple pages and contain all sorts of ambiguities, lacunae, and edge cases that create exceptions, such as the touch component of images, where

The GM should determine how much pressure a Touch Image can withstand based on the special effects involved, the situation, common sense, and dramatic sense, but in no event should a Touch Image have any sort of Telekinesis- or Flight-like effect. Having something like a ping-pong ball bounce off a Touch Images wall is perfectly plausible in some cases; having a character bounce off it is another thing entirely.​

So if I'm buying a power based off images, then I'm pretty much bound to establish it as an exception if it involves touch. I think Hero gives players enough to work with, but it does not tightly bound the range of exceptions! Particularly once one brings in Advantages and Limitations. Consider

Players can use this catch-all Limitation to construct their own Limitations if they can’t find one that does what they want elsewhere in this book.​

​

A limitation I construct for myself is going to be an exception. I'd call it Hero a modular, rather than "general", system: it fosters exceptions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Skills are pretty much all exceptions (like, P as an exception can fix a broken pipe, but there is no general rule governing pipes, how they break, and how they are fixed.)

Yeah this is a good example of why a better definition is needed. If every skill is viewed as an "exception", even if they all generally operate in similar manner mechanically, then I think we're looking at a definition of exception so loose as to become meaningless.

I agree with the rest of what you're saying though and I think that makes a better case for HERO as heavier on exceptions than I was remembering!

 

[payn]

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?

A nice write up. I dont see an increase in rules lawyer so much as I see other issues brought up in your blog. Notably the effect on creative plans and decisions within the game by players.

1. It trains players to think in terms of “what special rules apply here?” rather than “what makes sense in this situation?” (from the blog)

I've definitely seen this in some folks. We had a very long thread recently about RPGs being boring unless the special rule is in effect, in every situation, but particularly combat. Anything outside the special rule box, seemed like a failure of the system to engage the player. Furthermore, the special rules are niche protection to keep players in their own lanes.

This is often framed as the "answer is on my character sheet" philosophy. I am a believer that thinking within the box is underrated, but inability to think outside the box is a bigger issue. I play RPGs becasue of the infinite possibilities that lead to creative problem solving, not to be limited like a board or war game.

Although, I very much like board and war games too. I am just able to code switch my expectations between them. I think a lot of folks have one game mode, and thus rules design is going to be much more impactful to them. Which is why rulings over rules is tough to swallow for some people because their "special rules" can be deemed not special at any given moment. There is no solid boundary nor any consistency in which to trust in.

2. It creates an implicit promise that if something isn’t explicitly permitted by a rule exception, it might not be allowed (from the blog)

This was worse in 3E/PF1 and is much worse in PF2 with its feat design than 5E. Its not so much that an action isnt permitted, its more that its so likely to fail it might as well be. In the case of 3E/PF1 a lot of that is due to system math. Not only is failure very likely, its often punishing to attempt. In PF2, the problem is expounded by adding in skill feats and a proficiency level system that cant be adjusted with magic items, chargen choices, etc... It now has two limiting factors in system math and feat selection.

One of the reasons D&D and derivatives hit this issue so soundly is the amount of choices provided in chargen and leveling. You are not just a really good X. You are potentially good at X, Y, and Z. With an entire alphabet of items out there for people to focus on, it seems like to have a definitive list of things you can do and try. You need to build towards something in able to be able to even do it; it would seem. 5E has dialed back on this, but it hasnt completely escaped it either.

3. It rewards system mastery through finding and combining favorable exceptions (from the blog)

I really enjoy system mastery and exception based deigns. I like it in my board games, I like it in my wargames, I even like it in my RPGs. That said, I do see how complexity of exception based design can have an unwanted effect on the play of RPGs. My experience has been not so much that the exceptions are bad, but if you combine them with a leveling system that greatly increases the gap between players and foes it will push folks away from creatiove well roudned characters. Which is why my favorite RPGs tend to be more narrative and skill based with lower power curves such as PbtA and Traveller. YMMV.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Notes as I was reading through:

• Intro is fine. States its position speculatively, so later evidence can come in.
• First actual paragraph already hits a snag. "Rather than providing broad, flexible guidelines that empower creative play,"--you've just assumed your own point before doing the first thing to defend it. You've vilified all forms of exception-based design as being inherently and automatically antagonistic to creativity. That's...not really something I can accept, and it's going to be hard to not let this sour my view of the rest of the article. Presuming right out of the gate that exception-based design ruins creativity is just, flat, bad.
• "So they’re not just fighting better than everyone else, they’re operating under a complete different set of rules than anyone else. A unique set of exceptions just for them." I disagree with this characterization quite strongly, but I'll cover that later.
• I disagree with all three points asserted in the numbered list.
• "But they do sometimes conflict in the best of cases, and can sometimes incentivize arguments over rules interpretations in the worse cases." That's a lot of qualifiers. Others have already commented on how much the qualifiers are doing the heavy lifting here, but I'll add my own bits later.
• The Problem With The Incentive Problem: Or, rather, the two problems. (1) That the game uses exceptions doesn't mean people won't ask for them if the rules aren't designed this way, and (2) you haven't actually shown that the alternative is better, but your argument depends on it being better.
• "Rule Zero" has always had different definitions in different contexts. The idea that there is and has always been one, single, universal definition or process of Rule Zero is a recent, and erroneous, invention.
• "it fuels the fire of delays and arguments": No it doesn't. I can make bald statements as easily as you can. You have to actually show the connection, not just assert it.
• "it abandon’s [sic] the idea of making quick rulings to keep the game moving" It really doesn't, because the function of this Rule Zero is completely unrelated to that. You are applying it outside its radius of convergence, and then saying that because it's gibberish there, it must be gibberish everywhere. The conclusion does not follow.
• "it firmly enforces the idea that D&D is a game or rules, not rulings" Nope. Instead, it emphasizes that the entirety of the game--rules AND rulings--only exists to serve a higher calling, namely, the positive experience of the participants. The flaw with many of the "rulings, not rules!" arguments is that they completely ignore this in favor of an all-encompassing, absolutely dominant "DM Vision" with no room left for...y'know...actually caring about the players and making a game THEY want to play.
• "establishes for the DM to be overruled by the players, which is a powerful and dangerous idea." Initially I had a pretty negative response to this, but unlike any of the other points up to now, you actually explain this. I don't agree with all of that explanation, but you actually make an argument rather than a bald assertion, which is a big improvement.
• "This is powerful because player input should be one of the most important things driving the game." Fully agreed! The problem is that critical word: should. The formulation of Rule Zero articulated in 5.0 fails to emphasize how utterly essential this is, and instead positions the DM as absolute auteur-autocrat, which is significantly detrimental to the game for a host of reasons.
• "However, it’s also dangerous because pushing this too far in a direction the DM isn’t interested is going to cause them to burn out and games to collapse." Does this (and the following sentence) actually happen that often? Or are you blowing a pretty tiny problem way, way, way, way out of proportion, in the face of the much bigger problem of a single bad autocrat DM ruining the experience of not just one group, but many?
• "Finding Balance at Your Table" is overall fine, but I have two important criticisms (which, again, will be more articulated in a full response later.)
• As with so many things, your point 2 here ("Embrace The DM’s Role") commits a pretty frustrating bait and switch argument. You begin by presuming malicious player behavior (rules lawyering, "treat[ing] DMs like a low functioning gaming console", "fuel[ing] the fires of delays", etc.), and then follow this up by presuming a total absence of bad DM behavior. This premise is utterly unacceptable. Either we accept that both players and DMs are a spectrum of good, bad, and (mostly) mediocre/uneven, or we accept that bad actors are rare and most participants, players and DMs alike, are just doing their best. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot base your argument on "that set of rules enables player misbehavior" and then pivot to "we will now ignore how this set of rules enables DM misbehavior".
• "The DM should be empowered to make these decisions" I don't see how it is helpful for a DM to enforce decisions nobody else likes or enjoys, but that's the literal and direct result of rejecting the formulation of Rule Zero presented here: you are saying that the DM not only can, not only should, but must sometimes make decisions everyone else dislikes, and all of the others must put on a plastic smile and Deal With It.
• The Tips for DMs are mostly fine. I'd really prefer that 4 was much softer--genuinely "ruining" the game for even one player is a pretty bad thing that should be avoided, perhaps not at ALL costs, but it should be an extremely high priority.
• Tips for Players is also okay, though I disagree with how strident 3 is (sometimes, it really, truly is necessary to iron something out when it's run into). Also, 4 is hilarious in the context of the DM being the one who calls all the shots. That explicitly makes D&D not collaborative, but submissive, always defering to one and only one person's vision.

My overall verdict is that you got off to a very bad start, did a whole lot of bare declarations with no actual argument or evidence, but then slowly transitioned to actually decent advice, albeit with some points where you make much too strong advocacy for or against something. I'll respond more properly later, as in actually making arguments of my own rather than simply jotting down notes, after breakfast and caffeine.

 

[Nefermandias]

This "most complex stack of exceptions" you are seeing with 5e doesn't hold a candle to the complexity of 3e and 4e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The 3e way was hindering creativity way more. Everything coded from monsters (buult like charaters) to whatever you tried to do. And if you or the monster did not have feats to do something, they either could not or were so bad bad at it that it was always better to not try at all.
And if you as DM generously allowed something, players rightfully called you out for not playing by the rules...

So your creativity was always hindered by possible feats or special abilities tgat noone used but theoretically could...
3e was a game that allowed you to do nothing, if you did notnhave the right ability.

In 5e, you can make up rules or rulings way more easily, as the chance you step on someone's foot is way lower.