I don't understand why "game rules should work when you play them as written" is a controversial opinion in ttrpg spaces
That depends what you mean by "normal monster creation rules." I 100% think I can design a non-legendary monster with the monster creation rules that can be a threatening, and most likely interesting, "solo" monster.* Whether or not WotC has done that is debatable and whether you consider my design choices are "normal" is unknowable by me.
I guess I have come to the conclusion that a lot of rules should mostly get out of the way. Like I said in another post, I don't think stealth and hiding rules are that important. Make them a check adjudicated by the DM - good for me (and my group for the past 30 years).
I’m not saying the rules need to be rigidly defined, I’m saying that if they’re intended to be more loose and open for DM interpretation they should SAY SO, and they should say it clearly and explicitly.
That is clear and explicit. The stealth rules are not.
....Which is a way the rules could have been written. Instead of clearly saying "make a ruling on what makes sense", they give a convoluted procedure that when applied literally does not work.
I mean, I sort of do. The strength of the medium is in having a live human running the show, able to make judgement calls when the rules don’t suit the situation, so there’s a disinclination towards anything that might curtail the GM’s ability to exercise that judgment. There’s also a history there of the hobby having evolved from wargames, and the divide between free kriegspiel and more rigidly defined rules there. But, yeah, I think it gets taken to a pretty silly extreme sometimes.
I have no objection to minimalist stealth rules. I think 2014’s stealth rules - you can’t hide from a creature that can see you, a creature can see you if its Perception check (rolled or passive) beats your Stealth check, the DM determines when a Stealth check is necessary or possible - are perfectly fine. My objection is not to the rules leaving room for DM interpretation, it’s to them not being clear that they do. The 2024 stealth rules say “the DM determines when circumstances are appropriate for hiding” but then directly contradicts that by laying out a bunch of rigid-but-incomplete restrictions on when circumstances are and aren’t appropriate for hiding. These rules don’t get out of the DM’s way, they are very much in the way, while still not actually being functional without DM input.
Yes and no (on the Wish spell). Is clear, but not really explicit.* Some people don't like the DM decides type of design. The want explicit explanations of everything. I think that is how we get into these problems.
Yes, and then you would have players bemoaning that they have no idea what their players can actually do, because there is no guidance. It is a catch-22. Shadowdark gets away with it (and most other TTRPGs) because the are significantly smaller than D&D and attract people who want to play its style. D&D is trying to serve to divers of a customer base to work that way IMO.
We’re going to have a hard time communicating if we’re not using the same definitions. This isn’t what I meant when I said explicit. What you’re using explicit to mean is closer to how I’m using the phrase “rigidly defined.” I’m using explicit in its literal English meaning - stated directly, as opppsed to implied. I do not care if the stealth rules (or any rules for that matter) rely on DM adjudication, so long as they come out and say that they rely on DM adjudication. In fact, I often prefer that they do. What I have a problem with is when the rules don’t tell you that they rely on DM adjudication. When they are written as though they were rigidly defined (“explicit” as you’re using it here), but those definitions are incomplete, thereby necessitating DM adjudication without ever explicitly (in the literal meaning of the word) saying that the DM is supposed to be doing so.
