Hussar
Legend
I think the problem here is that [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION]'s use of the word vague is, well, rather vague. Because, the way I see it, there are two ways a rule can be vague:
1. The rule is unclear in some way and two people, looking at the same rule can come up with radically different interpretations. Alignment rules often look like this where two people can not only have differing opinions, but, can hold mutually exclusive opinions and still support their interpretation through the rules.
2. The rule leaves a lot of room for interpreting the final results or lack a great deal of granularity. The Carousing rules in 5e look like this. The rules are fairly clear in what happens, but, are very open ended and leave a lot to the individual table for implementation.
Personally, I have no real problem with the second type of vague. It's simply a quick and dirty system that gets the job done. You carouse, and stuff happens. If the DM wants to actually drill down and get more detailed, then go right ahead, there's nothing in the rules to stop you. OTOH, for those of us who don't care, a simple table does the trick. We can make stuff up on the fly if needed or just go with the results.
The first type of vague, I strongly dislike, and I think that it's poor game design.
But, [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION], my point above still stands. After years of 4e critics constantly kvetching and bitching about how WOTC was trying to tell people how to play the game, if they do what you want them to do, they will ALWAYS do it wrong (for someone anyway) and we'll have years more of constant bitching about it. Far, far better to step back, tell DM's that this sort of thing is their responsibility. Pass the buck back to the DM's because, based on years of criticism from loud, constant, and never ending 4e critics, it's not worth trying to get more detailed.
IOW, you are getting vague rules like this because that's what some very vocal people asked for.
1. The rule is unclear in some way and two people, looking at the same rule can come up with radically different interpretations. Alignment rules often look like this where two people can not only have differing opinions, but, can hold mutually exclusive opinions and still support their interpretation through the rules.
2. The rule leaves a lot of room for interpreting the final results or lack a great deal of granularity. The Carousing rules in 5e look like this. The rules are fairly clear in what happens, but, are very open ended and leave a lot to the individual table for implementation.
Personally, I have no real problem with the second type of vague. It's simply a quick and dirty system that gets the job done. You carouse, and stuff happens. If the DM wants to actually drill down and get more detailed, then go right ahead, there's nothing in the rules to stop you. OTOH, for those of us who don't care, a simple table does the trick. We can make stuff up on the fly if needed or just go with the results.
The first type of vague, I strongly dislike, and I think that it's poor game design.
But, [MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION], my point above still stands. After years of 4e critics constantly kvetching and bitching about how WOTC was trying to tell people how to play the game, if they do what you want them to do, they will ALWAYS do it wrong (for someone anyway) and we'll have years more of constant bitching about it. Far, far better to step back, tell DM's that this sort of thing is their responsibility. Pass the buck back to the DM's because, based on years of criticism from loud, constant, and never ending 4e critics, it's not worth trying to get more detailed.
IOW, you are getting vague rules like this because that's what some very vocal people asked for.