Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DaveDash" data-source="post: 6620804" data-attributes="member: 6786202">You can't argue that to get around vague and unclear rules you should &quot;Just use common sense&quot;.D&amp;D is not a game about common sense. Many core mechanics defy common sense.You can take the more simulationist approach and say lava = death and Rogues can't hide in a watched box, that's fine, but you can also take the more gamist approach where D&amp;D is more of a game, and these things are all possible because they're within the rules.I get tired of DMs who say &quot;Its my game so you'll do what I tell you!&quot;. The DM is a player too, just like everyone else. Some groups are ok with vesting ultimate power in him, others are not ok with that, and the rule book is the contract that each player agrees to abide upon, just like many other games, including the very popular pathfinder.5e is clearly aimed more at the former group than the later group, with the &quot;story&quot; having emphasis, milestone leveling being encouraged, and vague rulings not rules philosophy. That's ok, and I understand the design intent.It doesn't mean however that some rules couldn't do with some clarity, or at least just completely ditch the mechanic aspects of them and go completely DM fiat. After all the designers did say they will only errata stuff that causes arguments at the table. I'm simply chucking in my observations on things that not only have caused arguments, but where confusing in the beginning, and some (passives) still somewhat arbitrary and confusing today.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DaveDash, post: 6620804, member: 6786202"] You can't argue that to get around vague and unclear rules you should "Just use common sense". D&D is not a game about common sense. Many core mechanics defy common sense. You can take the more simulationist approach and say lava = death and Rogues can't hide in a watched box, that's fine, but you can also take the more gamist approach where D&D is more of a game, and these things are all possible because they're within the rules. I get tired of DMs who say "Its my game so you'll do what I tell you!". The DM is a player too, just like everyone else. Some groups are ok with vesting ultimate power in him, others are not ok with that, and the rule book is the contract that each player agrees to abide upon, just like many other games, including the very popular pathfinder. 5e is clearly aimed more at the former group than the later group, with the "story" having emphasis, milestone leveling being encouraged, and vague rulings not rules philosophy. That's ok, and I understand the design intent. It doesn't mean however that some rules couldn't do with some clarity, or at least just completely ditch the mechanic aspects of them and go completely DM fiat. After all the designers did say they will only errata stuff that causes arguments at the table. I'm simply chucking in my observations on things that not only have caused arguments, but where confusing in the beginning, and some (passives) still somewhat arbitrary and confusing today. [/QUOTE]

Verification