D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[cbwjm]

No they haven’t, but that hasn’t stopped people from treating them as official, sometimes in the same breath as they say “I know this isn’t ‘official’ but...”

My broader point was that it seems the approach has shifted over time from clearing up ambiguities and giving insight on developer intent, to pure technical readings of RAW.

JC has said, possibly in a video, that his responses are the technical readings of the rules. That's why he said magic missile was a single roll because technically you only roll once for damage that happens at the same time, which works with fireball but feels wrong with magic missile.

 

[Charlaquin]

JC has said, possibly in a video, that his responses are the technical readings of the rules.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people don’t treat them that way.

That's why he said magic missile was a single roll because technically you only roll once for damage that happens at the same time, which works with fireball but feels wrong with magic missile.

Right. It’s technically correct by a strict, legalistic reading of the rules. But a strict, legalistic reading isn’t what from an “official ruling.” They want to know how its supposed to work (nevermind the fact that the explicit intent of 5e is that it’s supposed to work however the DM says it does). They want to know what the “right” answer is. Essentially, they want to know the RAI.

I get why he no longer goes into the RAI, how it may differ from RAW, and what the RAF implications of either may be. But I think the decision to stop doing so has made Sage Advice pretty useless as a resource.

 

[TheSword]

Sure. Absolutely. But it would cut the ambiguity way, way down and make bad-faith readings of the text stand out a lot more. Now, there's barely a hair's breadth between honest and reasonable misunderstanding and explicitly willful misinterpretation. All because of the natural language approach. It's a reference guide and rule book, it should be written with clarity and precision as the main goals.

This idea of products being produced with perfection from day one, is ignoring 50 years of modern business development. Product after product is released in a useable form and refined over time to improve it.

Sage advice is no different to the small clarifications and updates made to any game or technology product over time. Expecting perfection in the first place is doomed and leads to a poorer experience. Partly because perfection is subjective, partly because it takes too long.

The Ratters Guild is the discord community of WFRP. The writers past and present frequently drop by to post comments on rules conflicts. If you think 5e has odd rules combinations, believe me, you haven’t seen anything yet. It’s a game though. I do wish people would stop talking as if sage advice/errata/rule conflicts are some terrible injustice resulting in players being sentenced to life imprisonment.

The fact of the matter is that 95% of Sage advice tweets pass without mention because they’re generally common sense. The ones that tend to be controversial are the ones that close a loophole players have been exploiting or open one a DM objects to.

Nobody is forced to accept any ruling. However if given a choice between listening to Jeremy or ‘random faceless internet dude’ I’m gonna listen to Jem. It wouldn’t stop me changing it if I really disagreed but I’d expect to have to work a little harder to justify that to my players, or convince my DM.

 

[Asisreo]

I believe that PHB16pegs the lowest possible number of rounds at

Spoiler: no joke, six hundred

View attachment 136145
10 rounds per minute, 60 minutes per hour

in order to basically immediately recover all spent hit points spell slots & class abilities expended over the last umpteen many sessions

I think the greatest part of Sage Advice is that a DM could interpret this sentence to mean something else (because natural language isn't as hard-coded as english professors want you to believe) and the players don't have some sort of actual authoritative evidence to argue with the DM.

If the DM says "Any combat resets long rests, that's how I read it." Then that's how it plays regardless what you try to convince them about the structure of prepositions.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do wish people would stop talking as if sage advice/errata/rule conflicts are some terrible injustice resulting in players being sentenced to life imprisonment.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone do that...

The ones that tend to be controversial are the ones that close a loophole players have been exploiting or open one a DM objects to.

Now that’s just silly. What loophole does the ruling that you roll once for magic missile damage and all bolts do the same damage close? Or making passive perception a floor for perception checks?

Are there people who get upset when a Crawford ruling prevents them from doing a thing they wanted to do? Of course. Are there other, more legitimate reasons people take issue with his rulings? Absolutely. Do any of his rulings trump DM rulings? Absolutely not, and I think he would agree.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the greatest part of Sage Advice is that a DM could interpret this sentence to mean something else (because natural language isn't as hard-coded as english professors want you to believe) and the players don't have some sort of actual authoritative evidence to argue with the DM.

If the DM says "Any combat resets long rests, that's how I read it." Then that's how it plays regardless what you try to convince them about the structure of prepositions.

I agree that the DM having the ability to make that call is a good thing. I don’t think Sage Advice has anything to do with a DM having the ability to make that call, and in fact, I think Sage Advice in its current form actually hinders the DM’s ability to make that call, since it gives dissenters ammunition to say “look! The official person agrees with me!”

 

[TheSword]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone do that...


Now that’s just silly. What loophole does the ruling that you roll once for magic missile damage and all bolts do the same damage close? Or making passive perception a floor for perception checks?

Are there people who get upset when a Crawford ruling prevents them from doing a thing they wanted to do? Of course. Are there other, more legitimate reasons people take issue with his rulings? Absolutely. Do any of his rulings trump DM rulings? Absolutely not, and I think he would agree.

Yes, I have seen rage over loopholes closed by sage advice. Also an inordinate amount of energy spent to criticize them. Which is really bizarre when a writer shares comment on their work. I don’t see it in the context of other games. Just D&D.

As I said. Jem doesn’t trump DMs. However, the games designer’s opinion just carries far more weight with me than random faceless forum poster.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, I have seen rage over loopholes closed by sage advice.

Yeah, of course. But that’s far from the only reason people dislike his rulings.

As I said. Jem doesn’t trump DMs. However, the games designer’s opinion just carries far more weight with me than random faceless forum poster.

I mean, I guess, but I don’t think random faceless forum poster’s opinion should carry any weight. And if Crawford actually shared his opinions on the rulings, as he did with the original version of the Trance ruling, that would actually carry some weight in my opinion. My point was that it’s clear he’s not sharing his opinions, he’s only giving strict technical interpretations.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sage advice is still useful for sane and common sense gaming.

The problem, as @Charlaquin illustrated, is that that's not really true. It kind of started out that way, but pretty rapidly became rules-lawyer-y stuff as if a slightly annoyed DM was rules-lawyering for some reason (as opposed to making rulings).

This suggests to me that Crawford expected (perhaps nievely so) that there would be relatively few rules questions that demanded an answer in Sage Advice. He expected groups of 5e players to mostly sort it out for themselves, and only in very rare cases would clarification from the developers be needed.

This is correct and reflects a weird WotC misunderstanding of their own game. They seem to have echo-chamber'd or group-think'd themselves into believing this, when, given 3E and 4E, it was a obviously completely irrational, because they'd just spent 14 years convincing players that they needed really solid rules, and clear answers on how those rules worked. The idea that you could just turn around and say "Oh just play it fast and loose!" to that audience is pretty hilarious. It's part of the whole "apology edition" vibe D&D Next/early 5E had, where they also seemed to mainly be focused on input from more, shall we say "old-fashioned" groups and approaches during the D&D Next test and so on. There's no perhaps on the naively - it was naive.

I believe quite confidently that some time between September 2015 and August 2017, Jeremy Crawford’s approach to Sage Advice changed.

Agree.

It’s just about giving the most straightforward, technical interpretation of RAW possible.

Is it though?

I don't really think so myself. Quite a few times since 2017, Jezza C has given us an SA which is definitely not just "straightforward RAW", but it's not RAI or RAF either, it's more like a spin on RAW with a heavy lean towards what he considers balanced.

First of all, ignore Sage Advice. All it’s ever going to give you is a legalistic reading that’s unlikely to be of any real use in a practical context.

Agree. It's disappointing because 5E does have unhelpfully unclear rules which kind of unnecessarily exist in places, but SA rarely sheds any light these days.

Personally I'd say the big two takeaways from this for me are:

1) The D&D Next team had pretty unrealistic expectations about D&D Next's audience, and how they would approach the game.

2) D&D 5E isn't actually particularly well-designed to be run in the fashion they've described, especially when you compare it to things like Worlds Without Number, let alone PbtA and so on. 5E's rules-writing is better than WWN in that it's much harder to miss rules outright in 5E (Kevin Crawford has an unfortunate tendency to write rules in the middle of paragraphs and so on), but it's worse in that it frequently fails to convey the intent of the rules, and often has very legalistic/MtG-ish rules writing, which whilst compact, strongly encourages people to think of D&D 5E as a game where you want to be "rules-correct" and where there's a right and wrong way of interpreting the rules. I'd say from the reddit and other sources that many new players coming into the game approach it this way and I think this is very much a result of how 5E was written.

It's also worth noting that a number of 5E systems don't really match up with any kind of "common sense"-based approach, but fit well with a tightly-ruled and legalistic one. Surprise is one example, and not only has how exactly the rules are "supposed" to work for Surprise been debated endlessly (particularly on the reddit, where there have been multiple heated discussions on it with hundreds or thousands of posts each), but perhaps ironically, it's one of the most common places for groups to simply ignore RAW (often without knowing they are) and approach surprise in a "common sense" manner, which often resembles older D&D editions.

Overall I think 5E rather missed the mark if that was their intention. Ironically, I think it may be somewhat more successful because it missed the mark, given that some people do want a more regimented game with harder answers and so on, especially people coming off of 3E and 4E.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, I have seen rage over loopholes closed by sage advice. Also an inordinate amount of energy spent to criticize them. Which is really bizarre when a writer shares comment on their work. I don’t see it in the context of other games. Just D&D.

I've seen designers interpretations of their own (or their company's) rules cause internet angry faces for decades.

We can go all the way back to 2E WoD and Rifts in the 1990s, and there'd be some rule which seemed pretty obvious and straightforward, and with Rifts Kevin Siembieda would be like "Well it's supposed to work like this..." and people were like "Hell no, that's completely dumb and directly disagrees with the text in the game..." (full disclosure: I was one of them, but far from the only one), and some of the WoD stuff (which wasn't even expressed as rulings generally, just suggestions) got people pretty angry. WoD overall annoyed a lot more people with really questionable Storyteller advice than rules stuff though. There was a bit of an issue generally in the 1990s with GM advice for various RPGs representing a disconnect between the authorial intention of the game and "how it was actually played", but that's a whole other (lengthy) topic.

Or good grief the original 1E/2E Dragon Sage Advice, which caused an awful lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth (often justifiedly lol, some of that column was spectacularly silly in a bad way or clearly misunderstood - and in some cases didn't even seem to have checked - the rules).

And that didn't carry the same (inaccurately) perceived weight as Jezza's stuff. Ironically, I think the fact that he started out giving opinions, and that the stuff isn't errata makes people want to argue with it more.

Sage advice is no different to the small clarifications and updates made to any game or technology product over time.

Hard disagree, in fact I daresay this is outright incorrect.

You're discussing actual errata and rules clarifications (and or software patches/fixes). That was the approach 4E took. It is not the approach 5E is taking, neither when it started out, nor presently.

My point was that it’s clear he’s not sharing his opinions, he’s only giving strict technical interpretations.

Yup. His opinions are rarely seen beasts these days. Even the stuff he seems to be putting a spin on the RAW of, it's pretty much always for the sake of balance, which I doubt is what he values in his home game or w/e.