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

[MichaelSomething]

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.

And what better way to know the spirit of the rule then to ask the person who made it in the first place?

 

[was]

And what better way to know the spirit of the rule then to ask the person who made it in the first place?

..IMO, the general spirit of all rpg rules, is to create an enjoyable game that runs smoothly. If there is a written rule that interferes with that, or an uncovered situation which arises, many people prefer to simply discuss it and houserule it with their group. The game should not come to a screeching halt while someone tries to research the author's original intent. IME relying more on group consensus, rather than desperately seeking an official ruling, is a better method of keeping the game on track and the good times rolling.

 

[MichaelSomething]

IME relying more on group consensus, rather than desperately seeking an official ruling, is a better method of keeping the game on track and the good times rolling.

What should I do if my experience is the exact opposite of yours?

 

[Fralex]

..IMO, the general spirit of all rpg rules, is to create an enjoyable game that runs smoothly. If there is a written rule that interferes with that, or an uncovered situation which arises, many people prefer to simply discuss it and houserule it with their group. The game should not come to a screeching halt while someone tries to research the author's original intent. IME relying more on group consensus, rather than desperately seeking an official ruling, is a better method of keeping the game on track and the good times rolling.

Yeah, during a game I don't really care too much about getting the best ruling possible as long as we can agree on it fast enough to keep things going. But outside of a game, it's pretty reasonable to assume that whoever made the game will have a pretty good idea of what works best. If we try that ruling out and it isn't fun after all, I have no problem overruling it. But all other things being equal, the game designers will probably have better advice than many.

In all honesty, though, the only place I ever see arguments over rulings is on the internet. In all the games I've played, we've gotten past confusion over rules interpretations fairly painlessly. People with ideas say what they think it means, and the DM chooses one that sounds good. We all trust each other to not try to encourage a certain interpretation for selfish reasons and assume we all want to make the game fun for everyone. Even in organized play, when the people are not necessarily friends, we usually get along well enough. Maybe there'll be one guy (or gal) who's kind of annoying sometimes with getting the rules just right, but the DM settles any arguments when they come up. All it takes is a little trust to avoid petty disputes.

 

[was]

What should I do if my experience is the exact opposite of yours?

...So, if I am reading your post correctly, it sounds like your gaming experience includes a lot of contentious arguments over the meanings of rules. Therefore, an official ruling would help to quiet the arguments and improve the flow of the game. I can see that argument.

...It does not, however, seem to be a very pleasant gaming experience. If you are actually asking for advice, and not being sarcastic because I don't always pick up on that, I would suggest taking a good look at the members of the group and how well they interact. Gaming is supposed to be an enjoyable group activity. It's difficult for me to imagine a functional group in which individuals place more value on winning a rules point than on keeping the game moving and enjoyable for the rest of the group. IMO, you should be able to place more trust in your fellow players and DM than on any official rules book. But that is just my opinion.

 

[aramis erak]

...So, if I am reading your post correctly, it sounds like your gaming experience includes a lot of contentious arguments over the meanings of rules. Therefore, an official ruling would help to quiet the arguments and improve the flow of the game. I can see that argument.

...It does not, however, seem to be a very pleasant gaming experience. If you are actually asking for advice, and not being sarcastic because I don't always pick up on that, I would suggest taking a good look at the members of the group and how well they interact. Gaming is supposed to be an enjoyable group activity. It's difficult for me to imagine a functional group in which individuals place more value on winning a rules point than on keeping the game moving and enjoyable for the rest of the group. IMO, you should be able to place more trust in your fellow players and DM than on any official rules book. But that is just my opinion.

They do exist. I've played with a few. Rules-lawyers are not imaginary; they exist, and they are a pain the arse, but get a group of them together, and they make excellent playtesters...

 

[I'm A Banana]

...So, if I am reading your post correctly, it sounds like your gaming experience includes a lot of contentious arguments over the meanings of rules. Therefore, an official ruling would help to quiet the arguments and improve the flow of the game. I can see that argument.

...It does not, however, seem to be a very pleasant gaming experience. If you are actually asking for advice, and not being sarcastic because I don't always pick up on that, I would suggest taking a good look at the members of the group and how well they interact. Gaming is supposed to be an enjoyable group activity. It's difficult for me to imagine a functional group in which individuals place more value on winning a rules point than on keeping the game moving and enjoyable for the rest of the group. IMO, you should be able to place more trust in your fellow players and DM than on any official rules book. But that is just my opinion.

To kind of support this: it's useful to remind folks at the table what the point of the game is, and how they're choosing to spend their time.

Official rulings can be handy, since these are the folks we are paying (via our book purchases) to keep doing this game, but if you come to the table to play a fun game of D&D, their rulings are ultimately not directly relevant. And if that's not the reason you're at the table, what is?

 

[Umbran]

Official rulings can be handy, since these are the folks we are paying (via our book purchases) to keep doing this game, but if you come to the table to play a fun game of D&D, their rulings are ultimately not directly relevant.

But then, by the same logic, their *rules* (which are only pre-made rulings) are ultimately not directly relevant, either. So, the books are not directly relevant to the play. Good to know...

"You come to the table to play a fun game of D&D" is glib. "A fun game of D&D" is not a well-defined thing, the same for all people. Different people come to the table for different things - and sometimes those things are in conflict.

So, remember that when you are reminding them what the point of the game is - for each, the "the point of the game" is likely to be different. Be sure that, in trying to dispel an argument, you aren't actually just being dismissive of what's required for someone else to have a fun game of D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But then, by the same logic, their *rules* (which are only pre-made rulings) are ultimately not directly relevant, either. So, the books are not directly relevant to the play. Good to know...

Yes. Absolutely.

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules", right?

The most directly relevant thing to play is the enjoyment of the people at the table. The rules only exist to facilitate that enjoyment. If a rule doesn't facilitate that enjoyment, it's easily discarded as irrelevant. If a rule does facilitate that enjoyment, that enjoyment gives it relevance for that time and that place only.

A lot of the rules in the books facilitate enjoyment at a lot of peoples' tables -- that's why they're often worth some time and effort to understand, and that's why the designers' intent can be useful. These are the folks paid to do this, after all. But a rule's relevance is measured by the degree to which it enables player enjoyment in the moment, and THAT is a fickle and variable and often arbitrary beast.

"You come to the table to play a fun game of D&D" is glib. "A fun game of D&D" is not a well-defined thing, the same for all people. Different people come to the table for different things - and sometimes those things are in conflict.

The thing that threads this needle is to understand that a fun game of D&D is not one thing. It is many different things, from moment to moment, accross different tables and eras and times of day and frequencies of play and....a fun game of D&D is a specific, local thing.

It is very well defined in that moment. You know if you're enjoying yourself or not in the moment. If you are, it's a fun game of D&D. If you're not, it's not. The causality isn't always well-understood, but one can easily see if the game one is playing at any particular moment is a fun game of D&D or not.

So, remember that when you are reminding them what the point of the game is - for each, the "the point of the game" is likely to be different. Be sure that, in trying to dispel an argument, you aren't actually just being dismissive of what's required for someone else to have a fun game of D&D.

It's important to understand what the point of the game is at a local level -- to understand what is fun for the people at the table. That's all that matters. What Jeremy Crawford thinks might be a good idea is only relevant in as much as it brings fun to the people at your personal table when you are playing. It can be useful to know that -- it's his job to find out what might do that, after all -- but it's not key to a fun time. What's key to a fun time is to understand what Bridget, Arthur, Melissa, Scott, Trystan, and Alicia think is a fun time.

It's impossible to define D&D for all players in all places, which is exactly why the designers' intent isn't the most relevant thing. The rules serve a greater purpose. Only that greater purpose is essential.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. Absolutely.

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules", right?

Wrong. I don't agree.

Gamemasters are not ragingly stupid. Aside from the quote's suggestion that they are thick of skull and numb of wit (so that they don't realize they supposedly don't need rules), it disregards the practical fact that rules are needed - they provide an overall context, consistency, and continuity of experience required for most folks to have a satisfying play experience. Rare, indeed, is a GM who actually needs no rules at their table. At least, in my experience. The greatest GMs I have ever played with are very mindful of the rules they play under.

That the rules can be edited and adjudicated, even on a moment to moment, ad hoc basis, does not say they are irrelevant, or unnecessary.

I mean, really, you're spending how many hours of your life on a D&D site, discussing these rules, but claiming they are irrelevant to play? That seems pretty silly - if the rules are really irrelevant, why aren't you spending time discussing something that *IS* relevant to play? Or, are you saying that you're so foolish as to waste your time in this way? In which case, if you are that foolish, why should be listen to you?

To be clear - I know you are not a fool. That leaves the statement as a bit of hyperbole for dramatic effect - but I find that less useful than the practical realities. We spend so much time having to weed through the dramatic effect that it gets in the way of getting to useful bits. The process is tiring, so I'd like to cut through it.

A lot of the rules in the books facilitate enjoyment at a lot of peoples' tables -- that's why they're often worth some time and effort to understand, and that's why the designers' intent can be useful. These are the folks paid to do this, after all. But a rule's relevance is measured by the degree to which it enables player enjoyment in the moment, and THAT is a fickle and variable and often arbitrary beast.

Agreed. But, you can't measure the rule's or ruling's relevance until you actually *have* it. The whole initial question of the thread was, in essence, "Why seek official rullings?" You can't prejudge it to be un-useful to you if you don't ever seek it out!

It's important to understand what the point of the game is at a local level -- to understand what is fun for the people at the table. That's all that matters.

Yes.. and no. In the context of this discussion, we have a tendency to think about ourselves, or our own tables as the iconic example that others also generally match. That brings us to statements like we have seen - "remind folks what the point of the game is!" As if doing so will end the questions about rules? If you stop and think about it, the disagreement probably arose because there is a clash of what's important to various people! Reminding them of "what the point is" is probably either going to continue to polarize them (each side think their issue is important), or dismiss someone's position as "not the point".

Rather than *remind* them of what the point is, why aren't you *asking* them what the point is? "Joe, why does this mean so much to you?"

It's impossible to define D&D for all players in all places, which is exactly why the designers' intent isn't the most relevant thing. The rules serve a greater purpose. Only that greater purpose is essential.

The internet is good at driving discussion to polar opposites. In your statements, for example, it sounds like there are two things: that which is primary, and that which is irrelevant. As if there were not spectrum of priorities and concerns?

How about we drop consideration of "essential"? Because, that is likely a bugaboo in the discussion - the number of people documented to be, "OMG, if I don't have the official ruling on this, I'm gonna DIE!!!1!" does not seem to be large. You seem to be attempting to speak against a stance that few, if anyone, here is actually taking. Moreover, it implies a position of, "that which is not absolutely essential should be ignored," and that's not a good way to get a great experience, is it?

Let's look at it from a practical standpoint. You bought the rules, read them over, and thought they served your purposes. For the most part, they do serve your purposes. The designer's ideas seem to suit what you need. But, there's an edge case, or an ambiguity of wording catches you up. Why on earth *wouldn't* you want to know what they thought? Everything else they wrote is working well, so, why not seek out clarification from the source? What is the argument *against* getting an official ruling?