D&D 5E Why are vague rules praised?

[Hussar]

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.

 

[jrowland]

IOW, you are getting vague rules like this because that's what some very vocal people asked for.

maybe. or perhaps the numerous surveys asking a lot of people who really love the game, who follow it religiously (OD&D to 4E fans and everyone in between), to really nail down the "essence" of D&D and, for better or worse, "vague" rules was part of the survey results.

 

[seebs]

Of the people I know who play D&D, Pathfinder, etcetera, I believe I know exactly one who is not happier with 5e than 3e, and I was one of the only ones who was even willing to play 4e.

 

[Hussar]

maybe. or perhaps the numerous surveys asking a lot of people who really love the game, who follow it religiously (OD&D to 4E fans and everyone in between), to really nail down the "essence" of D&D and, for better or worse, "vague" rules was part of the survey results.

Fair enough and a lot more charitable than my take. But I find it pretty disingenuous to see complaints about vague rules after years of people advocating for exactly what they got.

 

[billd91]

Fair enough and a lot more charitable than my take. But I find it pretty disingenuous to see complaints about vague rules after years of people advocating for exactly what they got.

How is it disingenuous? Was it Derren advocating for vague rules and now complaining about them? If it isn't the same people it isn't disingenuous.

 

[seebs]

Fair enough and a lot more charitable than my take. But I find it pretty disingenuous to see complaints about vague rules after years of people advocating for exactly what they got.

Probably different people. That happens a lot with fandoms. I rarely see the same person advocating for a thing and then complaining about it. I often see lots of people complaining about a thing that lots of other people liked.

 

[Hussar]

How is it disingenuous? Was it Derren advocating for vague rules and now complaining about them? If it isn't the same people it isn't disingenuous.

Because you asked so nicely:

Many people here probably know me as 4E hater and while I am so far pretty anti 4E is am not, like what most people probably think, fanatical meaning there are things which can change my opinion of 4E and I invite everyone else, no matter if he belongs to the pro, anti or wait and see camp, to also post what part of 4E will likely change their opinion of 4E (for good or worse) when it is done well or bad.

For me the primary thing is rituals. In my view they symbolize how combat focused 4E will be. If rituals are diverse, accessible for players and monsters alike, statted out as opposed to another reference to rule 0 "do whatever you want" and most importantly idependant from combat balance then I will likely change my opinion of 4E to "quite ok".

Another, but less important thing is how the game handles out of combat things. Here I don't want a abstract set of skill checks to solve any problem but rules how to handle common situations (and suggestions how to handle uncommon ones) but nothing more. The PCs and DM should decide when to use which rule and how the world reacts to what the PCs do.
The Escape from Sembia preview is exactly what I don't want (abstract rules of "making X rolls to succeed") but depending on how the final rules look like it can still become something I am neutral or only slightly negative about.

So as you see its very unlikely that I will become a big "pro 4E" guy, but depending on how the above rules will look I might play 4E regulary instead of buying the core books out of interest and then searching for another RPG to play.

So, what are your "critical rules" which will change your opinion 180° or will just tip you from "wait and see" into the pro or anti camp?.

That's from 2008 and it's hardly the only time. Just the first one I happened to hit across. The rules in the 5e DMG are precisely what he asks for. Almost word for word - basic rules that allow the PC's and the DM to decide how the world reacts.

 

[LostSoul]

That's from 2008 and it's hardly the only time. Just the first one I happened to hit across. The rules in the 5e DMG are precisely what he asks for. Almost word for word - basic rules that allow the PC's and the DM to decide how the world reacts.

Derren's objections seem consistent to me (not that people can't change their views over 6 years!). I read the quoted objection as saying that he dislikes making skill checks that are unrelated to PC actions. His objection in the OP relates to rules that could be interpreted in many different ways without any suggestion about how the DM could or should rule.
[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's looking for rules that let the DM make rulings based on the in-game situation, but also give guidance upon how those rulings will affect the game. He objects to the idea that rules that can be interpreted in many different ways is, in itself, a good thing.

 

[Derren]

[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's looking for rules that let the DM make rulings based on the in-game situation, but also give guidance upon how those rulings will affect the game. He objects to the idea that rules that can be interpreted in many different ways is, in itself, a good thing.

Having both would be the best but it would take a lot of space. Having either of them would be enough.

If the designers want to have the DM make rulings they should not provide weak rules but suggestions as that is a lot more helpful for the DM. This of course requires the game to already have robust rules in place so that the DM can implement the suggestions in a meaningful way, but that is a different topic.
If the designers instead want to make rules, they should strife to make rules which people can follow without first tinkering with them most of the time instead of rules which can be interpreted right from the start in many different ways.

To me, vague rules are the worst of both ways. First, they require the DM to stumble upon them and recognize that this rules does not work before the game or doing snap rulings during the game which disrupts the flow and then the book does not offer any help in making the ruling at all, either thematically or mechanically. And yet some people praise this for some reason.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION], just to clarify, what do you mean by vague? Do you mean the rule is written in such a way that it is unclear as to how to use that rule (5e Castle Construction rules would qualify here - as written they can be problematic) or do you mean that the rules don't give you specific enough results?