D&D 5E I for one hope we don't get "clarification" on many things.

[Psikerlord#]

Yes, but it isn't the same as 4e, where a "hard" task required a DC 15 check at one level, and the same "hard" task would require a DC 25 check if the character attempting it were higher level. Difficulty for most things scaled with character gains, so you weren't actually getting any better overall. Unless, that is, you really focused in one area, in which case you could greatly outpace the gains of your companions and turn hard tasks easy, or unless you were dealing with one of the few instances where difficulty didn't inherently scale, as with falling.

With 5e, a "hard" task is DC 20. It's DC 20 at 1st level, and it's DC 20 at 20th level. The increases characters get as they level up reflect legitimate improvements in ability; things actually do get easier as you go up in level.



Good point. My guess is that this will be available as part of the monster construction guidelines.

Im so glad bounded accuracy has fixed the stupid scaling dc problem of 4e. That was one of the primary things I disliked about it (though overall I liked the system, played it 3 years)

 

[pemerton]

What's the alternative? How can multiple people always reach consensus on context in a game that takes place largely in the players' imaginations, and where many people don't want to have control over anything more than their own character?

I don't know what RPGs you're familiar with, so I'm not sure if these examples answer your question: I would point to DungeonWorld, Marvel Heroic RP, HeroWars/Quest, and many similar games.

Not to mention 4e skill challenges. (Which are very different in resolution technique from 4e combat.)

These games have systematic ways for establishing consensus over the fiction (with the GM taking the lead), and for allowing players to bring their PC build featurs to bear, without the game breaking. (Not to say they're necessarily perfect - but they show how it can be done in a reasonable, functional way.)

(Also - they're not the only viable form of RPG design, obviously. But I think they answer your particular question in the context of this thread.)

I don't understand/disagree with this. Ambiguous rules require rulings. The need for a decision is implied by the non-specificity of the rules. One can detest that style of rules writing, and still appreciate that it accomplishes the intended goal--letting the DM decide.

I'm assuming you've anticipated this response and have a counter-argument ready. I'm jumping in because I'm genuinely curious as to where you're coming from, and would like to see you respond to a non-hostile phrasing of (what I consider to be) the obvious objection.

The thing is, to me, the rules aren't non-specific. They are several hundred words. And interact with various mechanical subsytems like elven and halfling special abilities.

If the idea is to let GMs decide, why not say something like "If you attack from hidden you get advantage. You become hidden by making a successful Stealth check. To make a Stealth check you must have sufficient cover/concealment that your enemies can't see you. You remain hidden by not exposing yourself to your enemies (by sight, noise, smell etc); if in doubt compare your Stealth result to the enemy's passive perception."

Then halflings could say something like "Because you are small, quick and lucky, you can hide behind your larger friends." And elves could say something like "Because you are a fey creature of the wilderness, you can hide in rain, snow and long grass."

Those rules would be non-ambiguous. And would give the GM power, under the assumption typical to D&D that - if in doubt - the GM has authority to adjudicate matters of fictional positioning.

It's obvious that there are methods other than rules ambiguity to force a DM decision. How does this make Mearls wrong when he says that the ambiguous rules text is a call to let the DM decide?

My main framing for thinking about rules drafting and interpretation is legislation. A poorly-drafted at can force judges to make creative interpretive decisions. I don't think of this as the same thing as an act which expressly confers discretionary or interpretive power upon a judge.

stealth is extremely hard to calculate and implement in a simulation.

<snip>

For those with strong objections to the 5e approach, please point to a workable ruleset that does not need 'common sense' interpretation at the table

No one is objecting to "common sense" interpretation being required, that I can see.

And my point is that there are better and worse ways of writing rules to support GM adjudication of fictional positioning via common sense. If the idea is to prioritise fictional positioning over technical rules concepts, then writing hundreds of words of rules that obssess over technical rules concepts isn't the way to do it.

 

[dd.stevenson]

My main framing for thinking about rules drafting and interpretation is legislation. A poorly-drafted at can force judges to make creative interpretive decisions. I don't think of this as the same thing as an act which expressly confers discretionary or interpretive power upon a judge.

So you think Mearls is wrong because the ambiguous rules don't "let" the DM decide, they "make" him decide. Whereas clearer writing would "let" the DM decide. Is that right?

 

[Greg K]

The player issue was caused, or at least exacerbated by the rules. I've frequently had players argue for the inclusion of their new book, saying that if I didn't allow X, Y, or Z, they would have wasted money.

We can't divorce the culture from the rules. The Rules shape the culture.

There is no one culture just cultures. Never had the problem in my gaming circles and neither have my friends elsewhere in the country. Most of the DMs are pretty straight forward- players are not entitled to use a book just because they purchased it. There is a list of allowable books, banned books (or supplemental material within), and anything else may or may not be reviewed to be added to the lists. Something not allowed? Players have no problem with it. The idea of arguing with the DM over this is pretty foreign to use.

Many of the people I know have discussed seeing complaints of this behavior on the internet and agree that while we have not encountered in a player in real life, if we had such a person in our groups, he or she would be told by everyone to stop wasting everyone's time and knock it off or leave. *

Probably, one reason that I have not encountered such a problem is that I don't just game with anyone. After one "incompatible" playstyle player, I started screening players to ensure that they have similar preferences to my own.

 

[Greg K]

You can blame the players all you want, but ultimately if they aren't having a good time, they won't play. DMs who don't listen to their players and who make their players unhappy don't have players, Rule 0 or no. Which is why DM-player relations need to be more subtle then just pounding Rule 0.

Which is why I find players with similar preferences to my own rather than just play with someone, because they play D&D. If a player feels what I allow or don't allow is not to their liking, they are free to find another table with not ill will towards them. It saves my players and I from grief at the table. This is pretty much the attitude in my gaming circles*
And, if for some reason we were not able to agree on D&D, there are many other games we could agree upon.

 

[Uchawi]

Clear rules are good for everyone at the table, but that will never replace the DM having to make decisions on how he or she wants to tell a story. That is what makes the experience at each table unique, but the rules serve as a foundation to build trust.

 

[Jack7]

I know I'm probably in the tiny tiny minority of people, but ever since I got 13th age I have loathed specific rules now. I watched that interview where Mike Mearls talked about why hide is like it is. I know it's a huge debate on how it works, but that's what it should be IMO, it should be specific to DM ruling. Other things that initially annoyed me were things like spell books and copying spells, in older edition it was a spell level per page, but in this edition there is no specific point, so I get to make it how I want it. I know I can do this in pathfinder and 3.x but having an explicit rule in a book and having to explain my way can cause friction with players and rule lawyers. So yeah, I don't want errata to fix this stuff, use errata to fix minor spelling errors and things like the warlock spell list. But the rules as they are allow ME as a DM to interpret them how I wish and I love this.

The thing I think they need to make clear is that the DM should decide many of these things. I also think they need to explain that the game is a toolkit not the game itself. Again, in that interview Mike Mearls said it was more like an operating system rather than a game itself (using vernacular of computers and game consoles). If you approach the game with this intent so many things become clear, also if you come from a very freeform game like 13th age 5th edition seems to strike a great balance between rules and rulings. So that's my take on it. Anyone feel the same?

Back to your original assertion - I agree completely and think this a superb summation of my entire outlook upon the game since its original conception and design. I'm extremely glad to see the 5th Edition return more to this point of view.

 

[Grazzt]

There is no one culture just cultures. Never had the problem in my gaming circles and neither have my friends elsewhere in the country. Most of the DMs are pretty straight forward- players are not entitled to use a book just because they purchased it. There is a list of allowable books, banned books (or supplemental material within), and anything else may or may not be reviewed to be added to the lists. Something not allowed? Players have no problem with it. The idea of arguing with the DM over this is pretty foreign to use.

Many of the people I know have discussed seeing complaints of this behavior on the internet and agree that while we have not encountered in a player in real life, if we had such a person in our groups, he or she would be told by everyone to stop wasting everyone's time and knock it off or leave. *

Probably, one reason that I have not encountered such a problem is that I don't just game with anyone. After one "incompatible" playstyle player, I started screening players to ensure that they have similar preferences to my own.

Yep. Most all of this. And same here. We too have a list of what's allowed and what isn't. And some of the "core" stuff isn't even allowed (halflings and gnomes being one example). We have a certain playstyle and distinct campaign world (flavor, style, etc.) and most of us have been gaming together for a very long time (some 20+ years together). So, incompatible isn't an option. We've never really had an incompatible player, but if we did, we'd do the same...knock it off or leave. Problem solved.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah ideally stealth and hiding would be clearer from the get go, its an important and central mechanic thats going to come up a lot, but I would still like a general dmg caveat about twaeking rules or using interpretations that suit your table, and giving some examples (eg heres a pro combat-hiding approach, heres an anti combat-hiding approach, and heres a middle ground.... )

You mean optional rules?
Yeah, there should have been/be optional rules for stealth.

Combat stealth. (AKA move near something you could hide behind and roll.)
Anti Combat stealth (AKA once see, you have to work to be hidden again with full escapes and distractions)
Facing based stealth
Etc.

Yep. Most all of this. And same here. We too have a list of what's allowed and what isn't. And some of the "core" stuff isn't even allowed (halflings and gnomes being one example). We have a certain playstyle and distinct campaign world (flavor, style, etc.) and most of us have been gaming together for a very long time (some 20+ years together). So, incompatible isn't an option. We've never really had an incompatible player, but if we did, we'd do the same...knock it off or leave. Problem solved.

This goes to one of the unspoken truths of D&D.

We have old groups and new groups.

Running a old that has been together for years is very very very different than running a relatively newer group. And Running an old group who is just switching things up is a different too.

And you have to create your books for the old, the new, the ones who are just trying something new, and everyone in between.

 

[pemerton]

So you think Mearls is wrong because the ambiguous rules don't "let" the DM decide, they "make" him decide. Whereas clearer writing would "let" the DM decide. Is that right?

Maybe.

I think clearer, simpler wording that said "you need to be concealed, and if there's doubt make a Perception check (passive or active as appropriate to the perception rules)" would make it clear that fictional positioning is key. And the norm in D&D is that the GM resolves disputes over fictional positioning. (This wording would also allow modular variation, though - eg a group could use "plot points" that let a player declare the fictional positioning for a particular hiding effort.)

Whereas a whole lot of technical wording that is ambiguous I think creates a misleading impression of a bit of a mess that the GM has to sort out.

Am I making sense?