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

[Ruin Explorer]

Rule of Cool and Rule of Fun are way more important to my magical Elf make-believe games than stare decisis, personally.

This is about being a Dungeon Master in an alcohol and cheetos fueled romp, not the Emperor Justinian formulating a Law Code for all time.

Whilst there's obviously truth to that I think his underlying point is that it's better when DMs are pretty consistent about how they adjudicate things rather than obviously inconsistent, and certainly that's supported by my experience with various DMs and various RPGs. Most DMs are pretty consistent, too - because their mind tends to run along certain tracks and they remember how they did things before. But there are a few DMs who are reaaaaaaally making it up on the fly rules-adjudication-wise (ironically they're often using pre-gen adventures in my experience) and that can be a bit frustrating if they rule one way one week and then another way the next week in nigh-identical situations (some of them are even good DMs overall, note, but it's a pain point imho).

 

[Parmandur]

Whilst there's obviously truth to that I think his underlying point is that it's better when DMs are pretty consistent about how they adjudicate things rather than obviously inconsistent, and certainly that's supported by my experience with various DMs and various RPGs. Most DMs are pretty consistent, too - because their mind tends to run along certain tracks and they remember how they did things before. But there are a few DMs who are reaaaaaaally making it up on the fly rules-wise (ironically they're often using pre-gen adventures in my experience) and that can be a bit frustrating if they rule one way one week and then another way the next week in nigh-identical situations (some of them are even good DMs overall, note, but it's a pain point imho).

I think pretty consistent is fine and dandy...but stare decisis is a bit further than I think the game warrants. It's more of a Civil Law situation, if anything.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Taking your history of posting into account, that's how you come across. I'm not going to get into a back and forth beyond that.

Fair enough, I’ve been quite a jerk lately.
All I can say is, I don’t think people who misinterpreted the rule were stupid (some who I know are very intelligent) nor do I think they were acting in bad faith. Neither is required to see what one expects/wants to see/what makes sense to you.

Hell, the rule is definitely different from what it should be, and I’m skeptical that the RAW is RAI. IMO, both it and TWF should just be a bonus action attack, regardless of what your action is.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Rule of Cool and Rule of Fun are way more important to my magical Elf make-believe games than stare decisis, personally.

This is about being a Dungeon Master in an alcohol and cheetos fueled romp, not the Emperor Justinian formulating a Law Code for all time.

This, of course, brings up the most important issue of this whole discussion:

WHY HAS NO ONE YET INVENTED CHEETOS-FLAVORED SCHNAPPS?

 

[tetrasodium]

I think pretty consistent is fine and dandy...but stare decisis is a bit further than I think the game warrants. It's more of a Civil Law situation, if anything.

It's not completely inapplicable as an analogy. Stare decisis exists in courts to create a sense of fairness & impartiality in the court, those are both good traits in a GM. Countries with courts that don't use some method of respecting precedent are typically called things like banana republic police state & worse with a reputation for being places you never want to be under scrutiny by taw enforcement as a well understood counter example to show the risks of ignoring precedent in decisionmaking that we regularly even get to see in movies/tv/fiction.

A lot of the 5e SA rulings were bonkers in conflict with past rulings & that created problems where it becomes difficult to build off both. That's called a Circuit split when it happens in different courts, but this was frequently from wotc alone in 5e alone. You need only start looking at the ways they rule on & avoid ruling on barding when it comes to mounts & animal companions vrs druids as a stark & concise example of it in action. Even when they finally broke down & admitted that there is nothing stopping a druid PC in rules or balance from saying "well no, screw that.. yes I will" they couldn't resist throwing in a jab along the lines of "the druid explodes"

edit: the planescape torment/ druid wildshape podcast has another great example where they explain the justification for allowing the cool dragonborn breath weapon in any form with a "mouth like orifice" then bend over backward later to rule out racial abilities from some other races like warforged also applying.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not completely inapplicable as an analogy. Stare decisis exists in courts to create a sense of fairness & impartiality in the court, those are both good traits in a GM. Countries with courts that don't use some method of respecting precedent are typically called things like banana republic police state & worse with a reputation for being places you never want to be under scrutiny by taw enforcement as a well understood counter example to show the risks of ignoring precedent in decisionmaking that we regularly even get to see in movies/tv/fiction.

A lot of the 5e SA rulings were bonkers in conflict with past rulings & that created problems where it becomes difficult to build off both. That's called a Circuit split when it happens in different courts, but this was frequently from wotc alone in 5e alone. You need only start looking at the ways they rule on & avoid ruling on barding when it comes to mounts & animal companions vrs druids as a stark & concise example of it in action. Even when they finally broke down & admitted that there is nothing stopping a druid PC in rules or balance from saying "well no, screw that.. yes I will" they couldn't resist throwing in a jab along the lines of "the druid explodes"

Louisiana, France, Quebec, Germany, Sweden, and most countries outside of the English speaking world are all Banana Republics that people fear visiting....Ooooookay.

 

[Parmandur]

SO, the issue here seems to be viewing Dungeons & Dragons rulings as English Common Law precedent, probably a natural confusion for those of us from Common Law cultures. However, Dungeons & Dragons is more like Continental Civil Law...and Crawford is not a judge in a court, he is Napoleon.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think pretty consistent is fine and dandy...but stare decisis is a bit further than I think the game warrants. It's more of a Civil Law situation, if anything.

Maybe, but I really don't respect the legal systems of countries using Civil Law approaches because wow the overwhelming evidence suggests they are way worse at making good legal decisions than those using Common Law ones. It's one of those things that sounds better on paper by miles and then in practice it's a totally inconsistent trash fire (and somehow more corrupt than Common Law stuff, I think in part because precedent doesn't work quite the same way). But now we're getting into Ruin's legal opinions TED talk stuff.

Louisiana, France, Quebec, Germany, Sweden, and most countries outside of the English speaking world are all Banana Republics that people fear visiting....Ooooookay.

I honestly would not trust the Swedish justice system further than I could throw it based on some of the peculiar and specific miscarriages of justice I'm aware from there (not talking famous hackers btw that's a prosecutorial thing not a civil law thing). The French one produces worse results than the British one, at least in terms of criminal law. Germany I'm actually not very familiar with, but I think you're maybe failing to realize how much some people involved with the law are utterly repulsed by Civil Law systems and their outcomes. Anyway shut up Ruin shut up.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe, but I really don't respect the legal systems of countries using Civil Law approaches because wow the overwhelming evidence suggests they are way worse at making good legal decisions than those using Common Law ones. It's one of those things that sounds better on paper by miles and then in practice it's a totally inconsistent trash fire (and somehow more corrupt than Common Law stuff, I think in part because precedent doesn't work quite the same way). But now we're getting into Ruin's legal opinions TED talk stuff.

Fair enough. I wouldn't say it's better or worse, just different.

The lack of stare decisis as a concept can be looked at as a strength, rather than a weakness. The electoral weaponization of court appointments that is rife in certain Common Law countries based precisely in using stare decisis as a scare tactic isn't even sensical in, say, the Netherlands.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The electoral weaponization of court appointments that is rife in certain Common Law countries

Certain countries?

AFAIK that's only present in the US. It is not present nor possible in the UK (unsure if in Australia/Canada). Electing judges or making them political appointees is a recipe for disaster regardless of Civil or Common Law. You can weaponize judge appointments in Civil Law because they can factor in precedent way less and make decisions more in your favour. Just don't elect judges or let politicians appoint them!

But yeah it can be a strength in some ways.