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

[OptionalRule]

...
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.
...

Thanks for your reply. I may not have framed it right. I was meaning to say this can be a problem and the article is just for an examination of where design in this case is more likley to cause a problem and why so DMs can think through mitigation strategies.

Lots of people are replying that they just say something and their players accept it and move on. I'm happy for them, but this isn't the case in most of my games.

I enjoy the saying "A problem well described is a problem half solved". I'm just writing down my description of the problem, why it is more likely to occur on DnD and provide some tools to get ahead of it.

 

[Plaguescarred]

While i agree on the effect of Exception-Based design produce on game play experience, i have to say this isn't new to 5E24. Nor is Rule 0 a recent phylosophy. It's more that as D&D evolved, these concepts were more verbalized or codified.

For as long as D&D existed, DM were empowered to make up any rule as needed and even overturn existing rules.

The incentive for optimization in my experience started during AD&D 2nd Edition with things like Kits in Complete Class Handbooks, Weapon/non-weapon proficiencies, Skills, Player's Options books, Tome of Magic, Specialty Priest from Faith & Avatars or Powers & Pantheons, or even in before with AD&D Rule Cyclopedia Weapon Mastery rules etc.. that all introduced specific rules that would trump general rules.

And the more rules just get codified in a game, the more rule lawyering will be frequent as players can get to know/use more of them a where light or loose ruleset usually see less of it, relying more on DM fiat or Mother May I approach.

 

[Nefermandias]

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.

The old Great Thief Debate @Snarf Zagyg is always yapping about.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The old Great Thief Debate @Snarf Zagyg is always yapping about.

Hey now!

I resemble that remark!

 

[Lanefan]

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.

More accurately, it was a game that allowed you to succeed at (extremely little) if you didn't have the right ability. Technically, you were still allowed to try anything; and once in a while those attempts would come off despite not having the right ability, thanks to some lucky dice rolling.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

More accurately, it was a game that allowed you to succeed at (extremely little) if you didn't have the right ability. Technically, you were still allowed to try anything; and once in a while those attempts would come off despite not having the right ability, thanks to some lucky dice rolling.

Players learned very fast that trying such things is usually detrimental resulting in not trying at all. Also a problem with 4e. While at low level improvised actions were cool and useful, the higher you got, the riskier improvising became.

 

[OptionalRule]

More accurately, it was a game that allowed you to succeed at (extremely little) if you didn't have the right ability. Technically, you were still allowed to try anything; and once in a while those attempts would come off despite not having the right ability, thanks to some lucky dice rolling.

Especially at higher levels, when you should have been more compitent.

 

[Lanefan]

Especially at higher levels, when you should have been more compitent.

Now here we might disagree a bit. I don't see higher level as providing a ticket to be competent at a broader scope of things outside your core competencies (i.e. class abilities), but rather to simply being better at what you already do.

For example a low-level Fighter in heavy armour can't sneak worth a damn. A high-level Fighter in heavy armour shouldn't be much if any better at sneaking just because of Fighter level, because sneaking just ain't what heavy-metal Fighters get training in.

Why? Niche protection.

 

[overgeeked]

It’s not exception-based design that enables rules lawyers.

It’s people out to win interacting with rules. That’s how you get rules lawyers.

Fewer rules, fewer rules lawyers.

 

[tetrasodium]

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 agree with

Spoiler: this section so much

In 5e 2024, it seems that Rule 0 has been replaced by a well intentioned and good sounding version “Rule 0 of D&D is simple: Have fun. It’s fine if everyone agrees to change the rules as long as doing so means the game is more fun for everyone.” and this works fine for many groups. However, for games with rules lawyers problems, it fuels the fire of delays and arguments over rules interpretations. First, fun is subjective so it jumps right past the idea of a conhesive experience and the DMs role in managing that to a sort of palementary process. Second, it abandon’s the idea of making quick rulings to keep the game moving and directly sets the expectation of stopping everything for a debate whenever someone wants to. Third, it firmly enforces the idea that D&D is a game or rules, not rulings, and that things run like a computer program, not like a story unless the entire groups stops and debates every single thing. Last, it flips traditional games on it’s head and establishes for the DM to be overruled by the players, which is a powerful and dangerous idea

2014 was already setup to encourage that with do much of the FM's toolbox stripped bare even before they needed to start invoking rule0 hard just to create a challenge for all but the most deliberately inept parties. All of the "RAW is not in player favor here but it seems cool" was stripped away and replaced with "RAW bends over backwards and buys shares in KY jelly to make sure it couldn't possibly be at all in the way of player whims"while maintaining strict exception based design for PCs to further hope out of things if the gm went above and beyond.

Changing rule zero so it invites any one player to call for a debate or dig in while largely maintaining that "rules that matter for thee but not for us" design is just an invitation for problems

When the game's design philosophy is "rulings not rules", the person making those rulings needs more (not less) room to make those rulings. 2014 reduced that wiggle room by generally ensuring that the vast majority of rulings are either Mary Sue "yes you couldn't possibly fail" wish fulfillment or a straight up & obvious nerf". 2024 doesn't seem to have changed that but added yet another obstacle in the path of actually making any rulings over rules of consequence.