D&D 5E Why are vague rules praised?

[Derren]

Something I encountered several times now is that when there is a discussion about a rule because there are multiple ways to interpret it or that it offers no help at all for the DM to adjudicate it someone comes and praises the rule as being intentionally vague so that the DM can interpret it.

My question is why? Why is it a good thing if a rule is vague or even not usable without houseruling or when the books give the DM no guideline, suggestion or other help in resolving something?
The idea probably is that this somehow empowers the DM, but why does a DM need vague rules to be empowered? He can already change anything he wants. And if the intention is to have the DM rule by himself, why make it a vague rule instead of a suggestion with helpful guidelines on what to look out for and how this ruling fits into the game world?
That would be a lot more helpful than to make a vague rule or a table with entries so vague that they do not help at all (the latest example being Carousing and not having any suggestion about what getting arrested actually means of being able to build strongholds and trade posts with no explanation what they represent and how they can be used in game).

 

[doctorhook]

I agree with you in certain ways, but it would be helpful if you provided more examples of exactly what you mean. (The excerpt about carousing isn't a good choice, as it's only a fluffy downtime rule, the kind of thing intended to be flexed, bent, and broken for each character as appropriate.)

 

[Derren]

the kind of thing intended to be flexed, bent, and broken for each character as appropriate.

But why make a table instead of providing suggestions about it?

 

[Eejit]

But why make a table instead of providing suggestions about it?

Inspiration, not proscription.

 

[SilverfireSage]

Something I encountered several times now is that when there is a discussion about a rule because there are multiple ways to interpret it or that it offers no help at all for the DM to adjudicate it someone comes and praises the rule as being intentionally vague so that the DM can interpret it.

My question is why? Why is it a good thing if a rule is vague or even not usable without houseruling or when the books give the DM no guideline, suggestion or other help in resolving something?
The idea probably is that this somehow empowers the DM, but why does a DM need vague rules to be empowered? He can already change anything he wants. And if the intention is to have the DM rule by himself, why make it a vague rule instead of a suggestion with helpful guidelines on what to look out for and how this ruling fits into the game world?
That would be a lot more helpful than to make a vague rule or a table with entries so vague that they do not help at all (the latest example being Carousing and not having any suggestion about what getting arrested actually means of being able to build strongholds and trade posts with no explanation what they represent and how they can be used in game).

The reason is probably twofold:
1. People were fed up having to house rule tons of little things in previous editions. I know from personal experience that there were a lot of things in 3.5 that were set in stone that we houseruled anyway because they were silly or didn't make much sense. This has gone back to AD&D as well, where things like losing experience when crafting magic items was like "eh? what?" and even with it hard coded we still got rid of it. Having the rule be somewhat vague gets rid of some of these annoyances by letting the leader of the group (the DM) be the one to interpret it how they want the session to go. Which brings me to the second point.
2. All DMs have different ways of running campaigns, and in essence, D&D itself. Most of the rules should be hard coded of course, as without them the game would just be an interesting way to play "imagination", but for some rules that the DM may want to change, it's good to have it be vague. Consider for instance, a rule that the DM wants to change but is hardcoded to the letter within the rules. The Player comes in with the expectation that he'll be able to do something, and the DM says "nope, sorry, it's my way". For a very strictly worded rule this can be frustrating to the player. For a somewhat vaguely worded rule it can alleviate some of the frustrations by having multiple interpretations.

 

[Blackwarder]

I haven't encountered a rule yet that was so vague to require houserulling.

IME, the fact that the rules aren't spelled out like an algorithm but take into account that the DM and players have a shred of common sense and common group expectation help the rules fade into the background while playing, it takes a bit of getting used to if you come from 3e or 4e but when it happens the game just flows.

Warder

 

[Joe Liker]

Some rules are about things that should always require DM adjudication anyway (such as stealth), but there are instances in the PH of spells that could be worded much better without taking up more space (barkskin).

In general, there is a line between vague and overly-granular, but that line itself is indistinct and impossible to pin down. What is certain is that the designers did not want this edition to be a product that was more simulation than game, and I applaud that mission. As always, there will be people on both sides of the line calling each other crazy. In fact, it's usually the craziest people who yell the loudest and most frequently.

But in the end, in my opinion, WotC has done a great (not perfect, but great) job of streamlining the rules and giving just enough guidance without smothering us all under a pile of minutia. For the most part, when a rule is needed, it's there, or there's enough of one that common sense can bridge the gaps. This is not always the case, of course, and "common sense" certainly varies from person to person and group to group.

Fortunately, you can always come to the Internet to see how other people rule and play those vague situations. You may not get exactly the answer you wanted, but you'll probably get enough ideas that you and the rest of your group can settle on something that works for you.

 

[doctorhook]

But why make a table instead of providing suggestions about it?

What [MENTION=6780256]Eejit[/MENTION] said. Also, D&Ders like random charts.

Also, I'm sorta annoyed you bothered to reply to my post without actually responding to it. Do you have any other specific examples of vague rules that bother you, or are the downtime rules where your frustrations end?

 

[Celtavian]

I can only speak for myself. I started gaming because the game gave me a way to simulate my favorite characters in fantasy books. I could build stories and come up with creative ways to bring those stories to life. The game fueled my imagination and allowed me to live an imaginary fantasy life of an extraordinary nature. Even as a DM, I was able to write stories and create my own fantasy tale or take an existing module and tailor it to my story preferences. How does this tie into vague rules? Well, in the early days when the game was very rules light, we wrote our own rules for what we wanted to do. Every thing wasn't detailed. There wasn't this idea that the game designer was somehow superior at designing exciting or realistic rules for bringing adventures to life. The term "rule lawyer" didn't exist. It wasn't because the DM was god. It was because DMs knew how to make something fun by writing rules themselves. They would take a base kernel of a rule and write something that fit into the system.

Rules heavy games move away from this idea. They create a rigid environment where the player and DM are constrained by the rules. Many players don't like to take the time to min-max. That aspect of the game isn't important to them. Many DMs are more concerned with an interesting story than worrying too much about all the gritty rules bits. A rules light or rules vague game lends itself better to story telling and creative design than a rigid system that defines everything possible constraining both DM and player. There are plenty of rules heavy games that operate more as combat simulations for those that prefer those type of games. I know there is a gamer segment that absolutely loves that type of system.

I find I prefer a rules light or vague system. I don't need every combat maneuver, every action, every interaction codified and given a number. I definitely don't need players attempting to abuse the system due to a lack of designer oversight and an attitude that a DM should be bound in chains by the rules even if a game designer releases a combination of options that create enormous problems challenging players. When the rules are extremely simple and sometimes vague, a group can create clarity through group discussion and consensus which usually leads to better outcomes. As a DM, I find myself more inclined to write interesting material if I don't have to spend hours on spell lists, feats, learning every tiny rule such as stacking and spell text, and the like. To sum it up, a light rule system with some vague rules suits my play style. I'm glad they returned to it.

 

[Rhenny]

It is the heart and soul of tabletop roleplaying, and it sets it apart from board games and video games. 5e design consciously and purposefully plays to what makes tabletop rpg unique.