Waibel's Rule of Interpretation (aka "How to Interpret the Rules")

The only CORRECT interpretation is the one I say!

The sooner the rest of the world gets that, the sooner we can all sit down and have fun...and end all fantasy rpg forum arguments everywhere.

heheheh.

[Seliousry though, nice chart. ]

 

[Sacrosanct]

EN World member Sacrosanct has created a useful little flowchart which tells you how to interpret rules in D&D 5th Edition and similar games. He's called it "Waibel's Rule of Interpretation". If you're ever stuck on how to use a rule, quickly consult this chart to find out what to do!

View attachment 65885
​

[Promoted to news article. - Morrus.]

 

[Sacrosanct]

Oh, I'm sure in short order someone will make a comment about how it's totally wrong, because all rules should be without any ambiguity and everything should be spelled out or it's a bad game or something along those lines.

To that I just shrug and move on.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A lot of folks cannot seem to handle the fact that, yes, it really is that simple.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's actually simpler than this.

1) Read rule.
2) Adjudicate.
3) Ignore Internet interpretations.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I didn't create this.

View attachment 65884

 

[Hussar]

Not to be a killjoy, but, "makes sense" to who? That's generally where the issue comes up at the table. I've had DM's make all sorts of rulings that "made sense" to them and I'm sure as a DM I've done exactly the same thing. "Makes sense" isn't always what's best for the game.

 

[Jester David]

Not to be a killjoy, but, "makes sense" to who? That's generally where the issue comes up at the table. I've had DM's make all sorts of rulings that "made sense" to them and I'm sure as a DM I've done exactly the same thing. "Makes sense" isn't always what's best for the game.

I'd had a few experiences like that, but my problem was seldom with the DM ruling not making sense but being non-favourable to me or the party.

If you trust the DM this isn't an issue, because you have faith in their ability to make sense if thing.
Problems arise when you don't trust the DM to play fair or lack faith in their ability to make sense of things.

In the first case, rules that allow the trusted DM to tell stories they want without being shackled by the rules leads to a better experience. When the DM is having fun it's infectious. In the latter case, bad DMs can be held in check by rules, but they'll find a way (accidentally or on purpose) to impact the fun.

 

[Hussar]

I'd had a few experiences like that, but my problem was seldom with the DM ruling not making sense but being non-favourable to me or the party.

If you trust the DM this isn't an issue, because you have faith in their ability to make sense if thing.
Problems arise when you don't trust the DM to play fair or lack faith in their ability to make sense of things.

In the first case, rules that allow the trusted DM to tell stories they want without being shackled by the rules leads to a better experience. When the DM is having fun it's infectious. In the latter case, bad DMs can be held in check by rules, but they'll find a way (accidentally or on purpose) to impact the fun.

I'm not sure it's even a trust issue.

I'll give you an example. I had a DM tell me that there was no plate mail in her world because plate mail was a later invention than chain mail and she wanted a historically accurate game. I pointed out that plate mail actually predates chain by a considerable margin. But, she stuck to her guns and insisted that her interpretation of history was right because, well, why would chain mail, with an AC of 5 be a later invention than plate mail with an AC of 3?

Not a trust issue, but, well before the days of Wikipedia so finding answers were not so easy.

Or, another time, I bombed the party with a manticore. I love manticores. One of my favourite critters. A player piped up and complained that I was using a manticore in a completely wrong terrain - manticores in 2e were desert monsters and we were in a temperate forest. Now, he was 100% right, but, I stuck to my guns. It wound up being a rather lengthy argument at the table, so it stuck in my mind. I often wonder if I had of just admitted that I screwed up and skipped the encounter, if it wouldn't have been a better solution.

And again, DM's good and bad are sometimes wrong. It happens. AFAIC, a good DM knows when to step back and relax.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not to be a killjoy, but, "makes sense" to who? .

The DM. That's really the only person who needs to know how the rules work. He or she is the one running the game, not the players. Also, there's some pretty significant historical precedence that shows that the game can easily be played this way.