I 100% agree with you and the OP. When I read 13th Age, I was blown away by the awesome 'tailor the rules as best suit your table' vibe that came across so strongly. The number 1 thing I want out of DMG is that same vibe. And given Mearl's comments on hiding, I'm reasonably confident we're going to get it, or something similar.I agree with the OP. When I was DMing 3ed D&D the general feeling was that whenever I encountered a situation I didn't remember how to handle by the RAW, I had to look for the answer somewhere in the books. Sure I made it up sometimes, but the feeling was that it was a shortcoming on my part, not knowing the rule already... When the books offer rules that are not too codified, it already makes me feel more free and confident that I am not running it "wrong" because more often than before there is no "wrong".
I also think there is another (major) problem with heavily codified rules: that they tend to "nail down" the playstyle much more. With regard to Hiding, heavy rules inevitably imply tactical playstyle. What about those who dislike that playstyle? They have to either comply with that, or go against the rules and get that sour feeling of being a little off the community, as in "you're playing it differently than everybody else, you can't play with us". (Now of course if the rules of Hiding were clearer and simpler, they wouldn't imply much on how the game is run) Instead, when rules are less codified, being different (i.e. having to apply your interpretation) becomes the norm: all gaming groups are different, so no one is different.
I think that this openness of many rules is a key property of 5e that really allows each group to seek their playstyle and preferences without feeling like they are changing the game.
Because of that, I hope that most of the times the designers will resist the temptation of "official" clarifications or sage advice, as much as possible. It would be better instead if for every question that springs up, they would give at least 2 different examples on how to handle it.
. However, I've also had players get outright angry when I say "The guard is unconvinced. He's fanatically loyal to his church, and he's not going to just look the other way because you rolled good on your Diplomacy check....which I didn't ask for....". I get all the normal stuff: "You're not playing by the rules!", "You have to at least consider my roll of 29!", "You have no idea how this skill works, do you?!", etc. All because it made no sense in the game situation and circumstance...so I didn't treat the roll as an instant "I'm your bestest friend now!" thing.
I have the exact opposite opinion. The rules should be as clear and concise as possible with as little room for interpretation as possible.
Whereas for me, I find myself relieved by the less codified rules. I feel like I have more creative freedom. I don't worry about what's "expected" in the general sense, about where to bend and where to stay rigid. I go with what feels most appropriate for the campaign/character/situation.
I don't think either of us is "right" or "wrong." I think it's just a playstyle gap. Obviously Basic 5e is less codified than your preferred style. I am not being remotely facetious when I say I hope the DMG's optional rules systems allow you to change that. Heck, I hope there are some rigid ones there myself, because seeing new ways of handling subsystems or whatnot can only improve my DMing, too.
If you were playing a halfling with a dagger and hit a dragon (clearly making the AC), how would you feel if the DM told you "I didn't ask for you to roll damage" because it made no sense for a dagger to pierce a dragon's hide? Combat works because we all know and agree upon the rules and there is clarification.
If you've made it clear how you deal with diplomacy upfront, that's one thing. But there is a concept of a character who can fast-talk anyone, who could convince the guard that he was really Pope Benedict and he shouldn't mention the visit to anyone, and that's not that outlandish a character concept as D&D characters go, so it makes no sense to you, but may well make sense to other people. The lack of clarification here, both inherently in the Diplomacy rules and how you're applying them is what's causing the problem.
See, 13th Age didn't blow me away in that way. Perhaps this is because I'm familiar with Tweet's earlier RPG "Over the Edge", which is a free-descriptor system (perhaps the first?) that makes Backgrounds and One Unique Thing in 13th Age PC-building look positively rigid.I 100% agree with you and the OP. When I read 13th Age, I was blown away by the awesome 'tailor the rules as best suit your table' vibe that came across so strongly.
I'm not sure if you're replying to me or not.Whereas for me, I find myself relieved by the less codified rules. I feel like I have more creative freedom. I don't worry about what's "expected" in the general sense, about where to bend and where to stay rigid. I go with what feels most appropriate for the campaign/character/situation.
I disagree here. That's not what I am paying for. I am OK with "some assembly required" but I am definately not fine with just a toolkit from which I need to build what I want. even an Ikea furniture has a clear and fix manual how to put it together and it's not just a couple or random boards and screws and a piece of paper saying "whatever you like"
Especially if they are running an organized play program there need to be as little doubts as bumanly possible in how to interpret the rules.