D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Lanefan]

I've often questioned the need for a rules adjudicator over the years. The more well designed the system is, the less adjudication should be necessary.

I think 3e proved to us all that no matter how hard you try to have a rule for everything, it just can't be done.

And D&D, unlike a videogame, doesn't have hard-coded limits that can't be crossed - which means once those limits do get crossed someone has to determine what happens, or what happens next...and that's what the DM is for.

But, if we do assume that such an adjudicator is necessary, why exactly must it be the storyteller?

Interesting question; and I'd say that it should almost always be the DM because not only is the DM (usually) the storyteller, she's also often the setting designer and-or houserules author. All of those factors - story, setting (and thus hidden story) and houserules (and the rationales behind them) - may affect any given ruling, and only the DM has full knowledge of all three.

Wouldn't it make ALOT more sense for the person most knowledgeable about the rules to be the one to adjudicate them? In my experience, the person telling the story is usually -not- the one most knowledgeable about the rules.

Then you've had some less than stellar DMs, as part of what makes a DM any good is that her rules knowledge ideally should be the best in the room; or at least on a par with any player at the table, if for no other reason than to keep any rules lawyers in line. And note that knowledge of the rules isn't the same as enforcing them to the letter - a DM doesn't have to be a rules lawyer, just well-versed in them - and she may well choose (particularly in rulings-not-rules-based 5e) to let some things slide.

Yet, the default assumption is what he says about the rules goes. Why is it that way, and should it be that way? My answers would be "tradition" and "no".

Again, someone has to be the final word; and having it be the DM just makes sense.

Lan-"it's strange, but on thinking about it I think I'd have a much harder time ruling against myself as a player than as a DM"-efan

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I mean the term "Big Story" to describe a focus on roleplaying, story, and just having fun, as opposed to a focus on competitiveness, rigid and balanced rules, and tactical challenge (i.e."Big Challenge").

So with this statement I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[outsider]

I'd say that it should almost always be the DM because not only is the DM (usually) the storyteller, she's also often the setting designer and-or houserules author.

I'm not sure I want the DM making the house rules either, if he's not the most knowledgeable about the rules. He can handle design, leave development up to the rules guy, if that makes sense?

As far as why the DM is often not the most knowledgeable about the rules, it's because he has to dedicate his non-session D&D time to story, adventures, settings, etc. A mechanically minded player is going to spend that time reading rules, researching what people do with them, etc. If the DM is substantially more dedicated to D&D than any of his players, then yes, he might be more knowledgeable. That's often not the case though.

 

[Caliban]

I'm not sure I want the DM making the house rules either, if he's not the most knowledgeable about the rules. He can handle design, leave development up to the rules guy, if that makes sense?

As far as why the DM is often not the most knowledgeable about the rules, it's because he has to dedicate his non-session D&D time to story, adventures, settings, etc. A mechanically minded player is going to spend that time reading rules, researching what people do with them, etc. If the DM is substantially more dedicated to D&D than any of his players, then yes, he might be more knowledgeable. That's often not the case though.

Sure, tell your DM that you aren't comfortable with them making house rules or rulings. You just don't trust them to know how the game works and you should handle it for them.

Tell me how it works out for you.

 

[shoak1]

I'm not sure I want the DM making the house rules either, if he's not the most knowledgeable about the rules. He can handle design, leave development up to the rules guy, if that makes sense? As far as why the DM is often not the most knowledgeable about the rules, it's because he has to dedicate his non-session D&D time to story, adventures, settings, etc. A mechanically minded player is going to spend that time reading rules, researching what people do with them, etc. If the DM is substantially more dedicated to D&D than any of his players, then yes, he might be more knowledgeable. That's often not the case though.

Sure, tell your DM that you aren't comfortable with them making house rules or rulings. You just don't trust them to know how the game works and you should handle it for them. Tell me how it works out for you.

@outsider Definitely don't you dare to speak up against Big DM lol....

@Caliban, your remarks remind me of Alec Baldwins line from the movie Malice:

The question is: do I have a God complex? [....] I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trama from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, "Dennis," and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17, and he doesn't like to be second guessed...... You ask me if I have a God complex? Let me tell you something: I am God !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3BPYTmE
​

 

[Hussar]

Sure, tell your DM that you aren't comfortable with them making house rules or rulings. You just don't trust them to know how the game works and you should handle it for them.

Tell me how it works out for you.

Dunno about anyone else, but I'd have zero problems with that. I KNOW that I'm not the most knowledgeable rules person at the table. And I also have no problems handing off rulings to our local rules guru who I know knows the rules far, far better than I do. It's fantastic. I get to handle the fun stuff like making the game fun, and anytime rules stuff comes up, I just turn to her.

Everyone should have a rules guru at the table.

Then again, in our group of 6, 4 of us have DM'd for decades in multiple systems and multiple groups. The idea that I am going to flat out be able to rule better than them every time is a bad joke.

 

[pemerton]

The players need to find a tomb lost for a thousand years, so we know it should be hard to find. With a fixed, DM agnostic pre-placed tomb, you run some risks. To highlight two extremes:

1) The players wander forever, not finding the tomb (whether to bad rolls, or lack of 'getting' the clues)
2) The players find the lost tomb immediately

In case 1, the players could become quite bored and the game derails. In the DM agnostic approach (Aside: Dm Deism? DMeism? lol) your stuck looking for the tomb, or you do something else.
in case 2, sure, yay, here is the "lost tomb" *snicker*. Its history, its 1000 years of antiquity are trivialized by the (from the players perspective, even if just dumb luck) giant red neon arrow saying "TOMB HERE"

The important point is indeed that the PCs find it, but in such a way as to live up to its reputation as a "lost" tomb. The Player agency is in the looking: how they look, where they look. Whether or not its in hex AB101 or AC101 is irrelevant. Whether or not its found by 6 successes in a skill challenge, or when the DM decides they've searched enough and its time to move the plot is irrelevant. The PCs searched. The tomb was found. Player agency happened.

Exactly. The player's experience is more important than the technique in this example. How or exactly where the DM places the tomb doesn't matter. What matters is that the players made decisions, engaged their skills, probably met some challenges along the way, and eventually, through research, perseverance, skill, and a little luck, found the tomb.

I thought I should say that what you two say is irrelevant, and doesn't matter, has been relevant to me from time-to-time in my RPGing.

At the moment, in the systems I'm running (4e, Burning Wheel, MHRP/Cortex+), there generally isn't a very well-established where as to the location of the tomb. But there is definitely a well-established how - the placement of the tomb will be in response to the resolution of player action declarations.

If those action declarations fail, then the PCs may not find the tomb. And that connection between mechanical failure and story failure matters. It's not open to me, as I run those systems, just to decide that "they've searched enough and it's time to move the plot forward". (The plot will move forward whether or not they find the tomb.)

 

[CapnZapp]

I think 3e proved to us all that no matter how hard you try to have a rule for everything, it just can't be done.

And D&D, unlike a videogame, doesn't have hard-coded limits that can't be crossed - which means once those limits do get crossed someone has to determine what happens, or what happens next...and that's what the DM is for.

Taken to its extreme, that argument can be used to suggest we need no rules and that we should be thankful for us being allowed to pay $40 (or whatever a core rulebook costs) in order to play the game.

In other words, this argument is irrelevant if I claim "the rulebook needs rules to actually regulate resource replenishment" and/or "the fact it practically doesn't is the elephant in the room".



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Caliban]

Dunno about anyone else, but I'd have zero problems with that.

Really? Zero problems with one of your players telling you to your face that they don't want you making any rulings, and that they'll tell you how things work? Also, no house rules. They'll tell you how your game will differ from the core rules. Not you asking their opinion, but them telling you that you are no longer the final arbiter of the rules.

*shrug* I'm just saying that I would find it more than a little bit rude, especially the way Outsider is phrasing it. I also really want them to try it with their DM and tell me what happens.

I KNOW that I'm not the most knowledgeable rules person at the table.

I didn't claim I was either. My point isn't about rules knowledge.

And I also have no problems handing off rulings to our local rules guru who I know knows the rules far, far better than I do. It's fantastic. I get to handle the fun stuff like making the game fun, and anytime rules stuff comes up, I just turn to her.

Again, not what I said. Or even what Outsider said. You've changed it to "I choose to defer to the rules guru's knowledge". Outsider is saying to just flat out remove that option from the DM's hands and have the players decide.

Everyone should have a rules guru at the table.

Sure, it's great. But not really relevant to my point, since it wasn't rules knowledge I was talking about.

Then again, in our group of 6, 4 of us have DM'd for decades in multiple systems and multiple groups.

Fantastic. Also not relevant.

The idea that I am going to flat out be able to rule better than them every time is a bad joke.

Again, not even close to what I was saying, but whatever floats your boat. *shrug*

 

[shoak1]

I think 3e proved to us all that no matter how hard you try to have a rule for everything, it just can't be done.

Taken to its extreme, that argument can be used to suggest we need no rules and that we should be thankful for us being allowed to pay $40 (or whatever a core rulebook costs) in order to play the game. In other words, this argument is irrelevant if I claim "the rulebook needs rules to actually regulate resource replenishment" and/or "the fact it practically doesn't is the elephant in the room".

There is definitely a lais·sez-faire-rules/balance-attitude among many Big DM, and to a lesser extent Big Story practitioners, that rankles DM Lights like myself. The idea that the Big DM wand heals all balance/rules issues might be fine to Big DM guys, but to those of us that actively seek to limit DM intervention in the game and its rules, it is an outrageous proposition. What rankles me the most though is that these same lais·sez-faire-rules/balance-attitude people are among the most strident opponents to the idea of official modifications to the rules or additional material in modules to fix balance and rules issues. This seems like such an easy point of compromise for Big DM peeps - just stop fighting a battle that has so little at stake for you......

It seems like every post by every guy complaining about balance is slammed by a barrage of "just have the DM fix it this way," "balance is subjective and therefore irrelevant at the game scale, its only relevant at the individual table level," and "ugh! why are you so worried about something as stupid as balance? just have fun!" posts. If its of little import for YOU what rules/balance the game has, why fight OUR attempts at it?