Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7601961" data-attributes="member: 996">I get it, and in the case of 5e, in particular, that's arguably very much the case:&nbsp; there's no saying that one passage is a hard-and-fast 'rule' and another is just 'advice' - unless there's some nice helpful label like &quot;Advice of DMs&quot; as a header, or some clear-even-if-natural language like &quot;it can generally be a good idea to...&quot;But just as 5e leaves plenty of ambiguity as to what's a rule and what's rule-adjacent, it also leaves plenty of ambiguity to what each passage means, so the DM has a lot of room for interpretation.To circle back a bit, we're both happy to take the basics of play as rules.&nbsp; I find no issue in interpreting &quot;...player declares an action...&quot; to allow an action that assume facts about the situation that have not already been detailed by the DM.&nbsp; Even if I were to choose to interpret it otherwise, a player /could/ still functionally insert such details by asking a careful series of leading questions, so it's not even like there's some huge pandora's box opened by allowing players, up front, to fill in details under the rubric of action declaration.&nbsp; &nbsp;The rules don't apply, specifically (though, a LOT of them are carried over), but the experienced gained is a definite boon (or obstacle).&nbsp; &nbsp;Don't be surprised if there are issues if you try to run strictly &quot;by the book.&quot;&nbsp; Seriously, you're making an inference that there's some way to play that's going to work better than all others - (and, if I'm being honest, there is: it's to mostly ignore the rules! but that's not helpful) - and that's not what 5e is.&nbsp; It's not a puzzle that the DM has to crack to extract the correct rules that will actually work.&nbsp; It's a starting point that different DMs will take in different directions to find what works best for them &amp; their players. &nbsp;Yep. Which was a case of paying too much attention to the rules (the 'hard' mechanics of skills, such as they are), instead of the DM taking full responsibility for resolution, details of the rules notwithstanding.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7601961, member: 996"] I get it, and in the case of 5e, in particular, that's arguably very much the case: there's no saying that one passage is a hard-and-fast 'rule' and another is just 'advice' - unless there's some nice helpful label like "Advice of DMs" as a header, or some clear-even-if-natural language like "it can generally be a good idea to..." But just as 5e leaves plenty of ambiguity as to what's a rule and what's rule-adjacent, it also leaves plenty of ambiguity to what each passage means, so the DM has a lot of room for interpretation. To circle back a bit, we're both happy to take the basics of play as rules. I find no issue in interpreting "...player declares an action..." to allow an action that assume facts about the situation that have not already been detailed by the DM. Even if I were to choose to interpret it otherwise, a player /could/ still functionally insert such details by asking a careful series of leading questions, so it's not even like there's some huge pandora's box opened by allowing players, up front, to fill in details under the rubric of action declaration. The rules don't apply, specifically (though, a LOT of them are carried over), but the experienced gained is a definite boon (or obstacle). Don't be surprised if there are issues if you try to run strictly "by the book." Seriously, you're making an inference that there's some way to play that's going to work better than all others - (and, if I'm being honest, there is: it's to mostly ignore the rules! but that's not helpful) - and that's not what 5e is. It's not a puzzle that the DM has to crack to extract the correct rules that will actually work. It's a starting point that different DMs will take in different directions to find what works best for them & their players. Yep. Which was a case of paying too much attention to the rules (the 'hard' mechanics of skills, such as they are), instead of the DM taking full responsibility for resolution, details of the rules notwithstanding. [/QUOTE]

Verification