D&D 5E The "need" for "official rulings"...?

[was]

There are some people who crave structure. IME this lessens over time. The trick is to never let the actual letter of the law trump its spirit.

 

[transtemporal]

Am I just the rarity that weighs "Phil from down the block" and "Mike Merals from WotC" as equals as far as RPG advice/rulings go?

Yes Paul, you are a unique and special snowflake.

Its more like 'If Phil and Mike are in a room giving a ruling on DnD, Phil's point would have to be SPECTACULARLY good for me to go with his ruling'. And why is that? Because Mike 'Cry Bloody Murder' Mearls wrote the blimin' thing!

And besides, I think most DMs when faced with an ambiguous rule would just make it up on the spot, and if necessary check it later.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Yes Paul, you are a unique and special snowflake.

Ha! I knew it! So my mommy was right all along!



^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[ExploderWizard]

There's a wide, wide space between "official is meaningless" and "official is not any less valid". In fact, those are pretty opposing positions - not outright at the poles, but they say rather different things, and it is not at all clear how you are getting from one to another, or why you said one, and are now saying the other.

The two sentiments are not mutually exclusive. If an official ruling is just as good as another opinion then it is just as valid. At the same time the fact that it is the "official" ruling carries zero extra weight. Thus the "official" designation is a pointless label.

 

[Dausuul]

In my case, it's a case of knowing the rules well enough to break them. I'm happy making the call on my own, but knowing what the designers intended informs my choice, and helps me figure if there are any unforeseen ripple effects.

This is one reason I like having official rulings. Another is that having a source for "official" rulings spares me and my group from having to keep track of a growing library of house rules. And a third is that I may not always be playing with the same group of people.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

The usual issue with official rule clarifications in my experience has been munchkins using them to bash the DM over the head to get their way. Only occasionally have I seen them be useful for a DM. Every once in a while the clarification is genuinely useful to both the players and DMs.

Then you have the circumstance where a player with a genuine concern on how their DM is ruling on a vital part of their character or how the game is played due to DM fiat/nerf. (see the recent thread on Arcane Tricksters and using mage hand...) This is usually because the DM is not comfortable with the rules as written, or wants to emphasize something in how their game is run, and the player is frustrated that they're not playing the game the way it's written. These situations are rarely (again in my experience) resolved by an official clarification because the DM often just says 'too bad' and the player remains frustrated. In that case the player usually either has to grit and bear it or just move on.

 

[Umbran]

The two sentiments are not mutually exclusive. If an official ruling is just as good as another opinion then it is just as valid. At the same time the fact that it is the "official" ruling carries zero extra weight. Thus the "official" designation is a pointless label.

How do you figure that you get to declare what is meaningful (or not) to others, though? That I don't get.

It is fine and dandy for you to say that you don't personally care about official rulings - that to *you*, "official" carries no weight. That's entirely within your rights - you are free to blow off the opinions of the designers as you deem fit. But to say it generalizes as true for all - I don't see how that's appropriate. I don't expect you'd take it kindly if others did it to you, so it is a failure on the Golden Rule standard, if nothing else.

 

[sigfile]

"I don't know exactly what this means", at a home table, is fairly easily remedied by having a chat between player and DM. If both can agree to an interpretation, issue solved. If they can't it's useful to have somewhere to turn for clarification. Issues can usually be dealt with before they consume group time at the table.

Organized Play is a whole different matter. If someone shows up to a table with a character built around a concept that requires the rules be interpreted just so - and the DM and player disagree with each other - that's probably not going to get noticed until it comes up in play. At that point having an authoritative ruling on a controversial element is a godsend.

I feel that it's important to note that I'm not assigning blame to the player. I don't believe most players frequent online forums and are even aware of some of the common points of contention. "X would be a neat concept - here's how I can do that!" can pretty easily fall prey to a fuzzy rule element without knowing it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

How do you figure that you get to declare what is meaningful (or not) to others, though? That I don't get.

It is fine and dandy for you to say that you don't personally care about official rulings - that to *you*, "official" carries no weight. That's entirely within your rights - you are free to blow off the opinions of the designers as you deem fit. But to say it generalizes as true for all - I don't see how that's appropriate. I don't expect you'd take it kindly if others did it to you, so it is a failure on the Golden Rule standard, if nothing else.

Where do you think you are? ...THIS.....IS....GAMING!......

Of course I'm not referring to the royal "we" with this.

The larger picture is that over the last two editions WOTC has built up quite a rules lawyer culture. With 5E they at least attempted to break out of that shell and write a game in which every aspect of play wasn't nailed down to the nth degree. The issue here is that too many official rulings taken as gospel from on high (not totally WOTC's fault for that) will eventually turn 5E into 3.75E. Once a ruling comes down from on high it is often treated by a large portion of the player base as part of THE RULES and bit by bit, the adaptability of the system is whittled away.

If official rulings didn't close so many minds to other avenues, I wouldn't care about them as much.

Hey I might be just a nutbar and imagining all of this but have you ever witnessed this effect in action? Anyone on message boards discussing D&D probably has. Post about doing something cool in the game then later lamenting the fact that they can no longer do this because of some tweet from a developer. Seriously?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

"I don't know exactly what this means", at a home table, is fairly easily remedied by having a chat between player and DM. If both can agree to an interpretation, issue solved. If they can't it's useful to have somewhere to turn for clarification. Issues can usually be dealt with before they consume group time at the table.

Organized Play is a whole different matter. If someone shows up to a table with a character built around a concept that requires the rules be interpreted just so - and the DM and player disagree with each other - that's probably not going to get noticed until it comes up in play. At that point having an authoritative ruling on a controversial element is a godsend.

I feel that it's important to note that I'm not assigning blame to the player. I don't believe most players frequent online forums and are even aware of some of the common points of contention. "X would be a neat concept - here's how I can do that!" can pretty easily fall prey to a fuzzy rule element without knowing it.

I keep forgetting there's a substantial amount of organized play going on out there! Good point.