D&D 5E On FAQs and Twitter

[jodyjohnson]

When I see "internally consistent" what that means to me is "everyone plays the same way".

Or at minimum, one group wants to say, "We play by the RULES, y'all are house-ruling."

That seems antithetical to the vibe throughout the playtest.

I dream of a game where I don't have to write down any of the rulings, because if the ruling was something that made sense to me and the group, then I won't have to write it down. It'll make sense again if it comes up.

And all the other tables can rule what makes sense to them. I don't expect we all think alike.

If a player is requiring me to make rulings every 5 minutes then odds are that is a player who won't be around for long. Whether by their choice or mine. It smells like a style conflict, and I prefer the folks at the table all buy into the same style of play. Even if some folks out on the internet think that style stinks.

When I see something in the rules that seems unclear, I take it that this was an area with significant disagreement on what made 'sense', so they left it open to interpretation. And if it is something clear that I disagree with, I understand that I have the implicit right to use another option.

 

[Astrosicebear]

If one reads through the official twitter responses, a vast majority of them are "Whatever the DM feels makes sense."

Hope that puts some peoples fears to rest. Now granted there are players' valid concerns, discrepancies about the PHB says this on pg 112 but contradicts it on pg 118... but so far nothing game breaking and nothing that seemed to make them go "oops"

 

[Trickster Spirit]

When I see "internally consistent" what that means to me is "everyone plays the same way".

Or at minimum, one group wants to say, "We play by the RULES, y'all are house-ruling."

That seems antithetical to the vibe throughout the playtest.

I dream of a game where I don't have to write down any of the rulings, because if the ruling was something that made sense to me and the group, then I won't have to write it down. It'll make sense again if it comes up.

And all the other tables can rule what makes sense to them. I don't expect we all think alike.

If a player is requiring me to make rulings every 5 minutes then odds are that is a player who won't be around for long. Whether by their choice or mine. It smells like a style conflict, and I prefer the folks at the table all buy into the same style of play. Even if some folks out on the internet think that style stinks.

When I see something in the rules that seems unclear, I take it that this was an area with significant disagreement on what made 'sense', so they left it open to interpretation. And if it is something clear that I disagree with, I understand that I have the implicit right to use another option.

"You must spread XP around, etc., etc."

You've summed up my thoughts on the topic perfectly.

 

[Umbran]

DM's call should be the standard answer to any question.

And it is entirely reasonable for DMs to look for guidance on those calls from the folks who created the game.

Reading a bit into your post - Not everyone looking for FAQs are players trying to rules-lawyer.

 

[Joe Liker]

I think it's a spectrum. I think we all have some rules we'd like to see clarified, but some want a lot more than others.

I personally don't see any need for clarification in the cases presented in the OP, but I would, for example, like to see the barkskin spell rewritten with clearer language.

A lot of these more rules-lawyery questions are cases where people are just not used to saying "yes" to the players because they have had bad experiences in editions that were viewed as more exploitable.

The good news is, 5th edition is not exploitable at all! Because questions like these are left to the judgment and common sense of the DM, it's not a problem for the rules to leave a little wiggle room.

It's unrealistic to expect a profoundly open-ended system like D&D to have precise rules covering every possible contingency. The designers realized the folly in even trying to do that.

The DM and players just need to learn to trust each other and compromise a bit. If that relationship is so adversarial that a place of trust cannot be found, it's not going to be a fun game, anyway, so you might as well just throw in the towel and scrap the campaign.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Note that in one of Mearls tweets, he says "Well, the Official answer might be something else, but here's how I'd rule it..." So, even he doesn't consider his tweets Official FAQs. Alot of the time he mentions he doesn't even have the PHB handy when he gives an opinion.

I'm sure an official FAQ will be in the offing, after the DMG is out the door, which will based on a bit more internal research, discussion and careful wording from the Wizards team.

That said, a lot of stuff that gets a response of "DM's call" I see as falling into a few of categories. One is where the final decision isn't that important. DM call one way or the other doesn't affect the game in the long run. Another is the "unclear" rule is written that way because trying to cover every possible real-world scenario is not practical, tedious, and will probably result in language which will further complicate decisions regarding that rule. See "Hiding". And lastly, some are "Well, why not? The game may play a bit differently, but give it a try! It's your game!"

I agree with the OP. I like a game that's internally consistent so that I can focus on the setting and adventure rather than spend my time making and recording judgment calls every five minutes. Otherwise, what am I paying for?

On the other hand, a game that has that level of "consistency" is going to put some additional burden on the DM to know a more detailed set of rules, or at the very least slow play up as they feel the need to look up the rule and verify they're playing the "right" way.

To me "focusing on the setting and adventure" is a sub-set of DM calls, anyway. Both interact with the rules, and require DM judgement. Players are always going to try something not covered by the rules as part of the adventure, or ask about what their character can do\know in the context of their background (both in the mechanical and story sence) or the present situation in the adventure. DM calls on rules also often are of the "what makes sense for the story/scene, or be cool", where overly-codified rules can intrude/limit those type of rulings.

 

[Pandamonium87]

And it is entirely reasonable for DMs to look for guidance on those calls from the folks who created the game.

Reading a bit into your post - Not everyone looking for FAQs are players trying to rules-lawyer.

Sure it is, but when the FAQ enters too much in any aspect of the game it becomes a weapon in rules-lawyers. I don't want a FAQ that tells me if I can cast spells using a shield, I want to decide depending on the spell, on the character and on the situation.

As regards errors and bad explained rules, of course it's a completely different thing.

 

[halfling rogue]

I've never played the early editions, but from everything I've read (including the early game books) whenever anything is unclear, the spirit has always been 1) Imagination trumps the rules, and so that things don't start going crazy 2) the DM has the final say. Folks all over the internet who played back'n'th'day seem to be always reminiscing about how the rules were always unclear/misunderstood/ignored/incomplete, etc, and so they made it up as they went.

Because I only came in late to the 3.5 party, I honestly don't know where the new mindset came in. I've seen it blamed on 3rd & 4th editions, but I've read those two and they specifically fall in line with 1) imagination trumps rules and 2) DM has final say. In my 3.5 group we've never had a rules lawyer or fretted about what to do if we were unclear on a rule, so I can't lay it at the feet of the system. From where I stand the spirit that says we must have clarity and unity in all things has been injected into D&D from the outside and not deriving it from any particular D&D system.

But as to Twitter, Mearls has maintained the same spirit that has (as far as I can tell) been RAW from the beginning. When things are unclear: Imagination + DM = Fun

 

[Umbran]

Sure it is, but when the FAQ enters too much in any aspect of the game it becomes a weapon in rules-lawyers.

Rules-lawyering is not itself a rules and resources issue! It is a *human interaction* issue.

If you have a disruptive rules-lawyer, you don't successfully control them by controlling what rules and rulings they have available - that is a passive-aggressive approach that doesn't really address the central issue. You manage them by having a discussion like mature adults about how rules will be adjudicated at the table, and how much counter-argument will be allowed.

I don't want a FAQ that tells me if I can cast spells using a shield, I want to decide depending on the spell, on the character and on the situation.

"I don't want it, so *nobody* can have it," is a questionable position to take.

If you don't want it, don't use it. Don't allow reference to it at your table.

 

[brehobit]

I don't want a FAQ that tells me if I can cast spells using a shield, I want to decide depending on the spell, on the character and on the situation.

Humm, this is a playstyle I'm not quite used to. Could you give an example of where the spell, situation and character would play a role in the decision if the caster could cast with a shield or not?

I expect lots of calls to be made by the DM on the fly (I'm generally the DM and do this a lot), but I don't expect things like that to be one of those things.

Mark