D&D 5E Why are vague rules praised?

[Oofta]

Tl;dr. Derren was right, the contradictions and lack of clarification in D&D 5e in no way makes it "better".

I created a profile here, with just the single (for now) purpose of expressing, 5 years later, that Derren was absolutely correct. And what an absolute flood of B*S* that he had to deal with in this thread.
What an absurd stream of intentionally/unintentionally misunderstanding comments. Of course having a comprehensive frame of well thought out rules, that the GM can then chose to bend and forego as needed, is always better, than no one knowing wtf is going on.

I don't look at the clusterf**k that is the contradictions and lack of clarification of PHB, DMG etc, and go "oh how great that no one knows how to do anything". Derren is absolutely right that with a solid frame, the GM can then just CHOSE to follow, or scratch rules however he sees fit. But the upside to having a D&D with a solid frame of rules, is that it imo takes pressure off of the GM because the players can then just follow the basics, and don't have to rely on the already burdened GM to almost (exaggerating to get my point across here) invent the entire game of D&D him/herself. Why even bother buying the books, if they are just suggestions? (again exaggerating to make a point)

Last but not least, my beef at this point isn't primarily with WotC and their "hand waved" 5e. I understand the large amount of work creating the basis for a game like D&D entails. No, my primary beef, is with the people who insist that it's a better game because of it. It's not. But it is remarkably less time consuming and cheaper to create something with "less moving parts" or less variables, because the more things you have in a system, the more complex it becomes. And that might not be for everyone, I wouldn't enjoy a game that had as many variables as I hear 3.5 had when it came to combat, but the assertion that D&D 5e is automatically better, because of it being less complex is ridiculous imo. - Rant over. And sorry for offending.

No offense taken, I just completely disagree. It's far, far better to have a foundational structure that I can add to as a DM than a highly structured rule-set that I have to remove things from.

Let's take the poster child of vague rules: stealth and hiding. I don't want to start up another conversation about it, but it's a good example of the 5E philosophy.

There was a podcast a while back with Mr Crawford where he discussed this. At one point, they had detailed rules that went on for a page or two trying to cover every option. They decided to throw them out because no matter how much you try to clarify something, there will always be edge cases. The more edge cases you try to cover, the more time people end up discussion minutae and the more clarification needed.

So we have "vague" rules. The way stealth is handled can be flexible and largely based on circumstances and personal preference of the group. No more flipping through books looking for the specific scenario as described in Xanathar's Guide to Stealth. Or just as bad, applying the rule as written and having everybody at the table going "how the heck does that work?" because it doesn't fit the theme and style of campaign you're running.

With 5E I can have two different campaigns that feel completely different. Standard fantasy novel? Not much tweaking necessary. Anime/cartoon game? Sure just be a bit more lenient. Gritty? There's some optional rules in the DMG on that and I have a handful of house rules.

Just my two coppers.

 

[Umbran]

How can you have a rules-light system with lots of crunch?

Great question. I dunno how that works, at all.

You can have a rules-light system that has lots of tactical depth - look at the game of Go as an example. But rules-light with lots of crunch? I don't see how that works.

 

[Campbell]

So I get the value in not having a rule for something and I understand the value of having a rule that requires judgement to apply. What I have trouble understanding is having a rule for something, but making it deliberately difficult to apply in play or writing rules in a way that is unclear so trying to reference them at the table is deliberately difficult.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So I get the value in not having a rule for something and I understand the value of having a rule that requires judgement to apply. What I have trouble understanding is having a rule for something, but making it deliberately difficult to apply in play or writing rules in a way that is unclear so trying to reference them at the table is deliberately difficult.

Got some specific examples we can examine with you?

 

[Oofta]

So I get the value in not having a rule for something and I understand the value of having a rule that requires judgement to apply. What I have trouble understanding is having a rule for something, but making it deliberately difficult to apply in play or writing rules in a way that is unclear so trying to reference them at the table is deliberately difficult.

Such as? EDIT: ninja'd

 

[Oofta]

How can you have a rules-light system with lots of crunch?

From the wikipedia entry on role-playing game terms: Crunch: The rules and mechanics of a game.

So, I agree. Huh?

 

[Charlaquin]

How can you have a rules-light system with lots of crunch?

It’s a balancing act. For me, the key is a light core system with a good amount of modular crunchy options you can add on top if you so choose. Also, design that uses its complexity budget very efficiently,

 

[Charlaquin]

From the wikipedia entry on role-playing game terms: Crunch: The rules and mechanics of a game.

So, I agree. Huh?

It’s possible I’m using crunch differently than is common. What I’m getting at is, a lightweight core system, with a healthy dose of player-side mechanical options. I see 4e Essentials as a decent example of what I’m getting at, although the microfeats push it out of rules light territory for me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[CleverNickName]

I was going to chime in with my two cents, but @Oofta hit the nail on the head for me.

I don't think it's even possible to write rules that will cover every possibility that can arise in a roleplaying game, so there will always be gray areas that have to be interpreted. And rather than dedicating pages of rules to making that gray area smaller, I would prefer to just have a frame work with a couple of examples to use as a guide.

I feel that players should trust the DM (who is more familiar with the situation and possible outcomes), and the DM should trust the players (who are more familiar with their characters' talents and motivations), and everyone should work together to resolve situations quickly (but fairly) on a case-by-case basis.