One of the catch phrases of Next throughout the playtest was "rulings not rules", which I frankly took to be vague to the point of meaninglessness.
But now that the rules are out, I absolutely see what they were going for with that. There are a tremendous number of places in these pages where the text explicitly declares that the result of a given spell, feature or check is simply up to the DM. I don't mean some sort of generalized "Rule 0" statement once early on in the rule set--every edition ever has had that, with the option for the DM to improvise or override RAW as he desires.
Rather, in many cases the RAW itself in this edition is some version of "the DM makes something up as they desire." In other words, DM rulings aren't a function of simply settling points where rules are ambiguous, or coming up with house rules to suit their preferences. Rather the rules themselves call for DM rulings all the time as a routine part of play.
The Cleric's ability to call upon divine intervention for example, has rules for how often it can be done and the odds of success, but the actual effect is simply whatever the DM makes up. There is no such thing as RAW independent from rulings.
I love this for a number of reasons.
-It takes one if the central features that set D&d apart from so many other games, and it puts it front and center as a core component of the game. It would be functionally impossible to create a computer game, for example, that in any way replicates the experience of using many of these features at the table.
-It makes the rapport between DM and players hugely important, and not just for non-casters. That is, a frequent balance complaint in prior editions has been that the results of checks and improvisation call for much more DM adjucation than the discrete effects a caster produces. But there are a big number of spells and caster features in here that rely on DM rulings every bit as much (or more) than checks.
-It de-standardizes the game, taking it away from the idea that every table will play out the rules exactly the same except in the case of intentional house rules. Divine intervention will have a very different effect at each table depending on their particular DM-
-there is simply no such thing as a RAW expected result that players will feel entitled to at any given table. On the same note, it de-emphasizes optimization, because its very hard to build a character around exploiting a feature or ability that has no codified effect, but instead simply leaves the result entirely in the DM's hands
Good comments. There are enough rules to get people started, but it is open enough to let DMs and players grow with experience.
I think this will give this edition "legs" (a longer edition life).
A good enough GM can make up for any failing in an RPG.
Counting on that works as long as your game is played exclusively by competent, experienced GMs. I do not get the impression 5e is exactly trawling for newbies, so it should be fine. It economizes design resources by letting DMs (typically with years or decades of experience) finish some of the design work, and it's a way to dodge making the toughest/most-controversial decisions. A fascile way of providing flexibility and customizability (that might even pass for modularity) with a minimum of design resources.
Hmm.. it also sounds like yet something else that 5e has in common with 13A, too. 13A is littered with side bars and 'you decide' points in the rules where the designers adopt a conversational tone with the reader (presumably the GM) go over the pros and cons of a certain design decision - and leave it undecided.
Once DMs realize they ARE the divine intervention, then it gets easier. 
I believe it is a playstyle thing so not everyone will agree with you but I do. I personally far prefer fewer clearer rules and more DM adjudication. If an adversarial relationship exists between the DM and players in my campaign, the players would always lose. There has to be trust and honesty. The DM has to strive for fun for everyone and fairness. If that is your goal and you as DM work hard at it then you have a great campaign that never has to look for players.
It's going to take alot of pain to move D&D away from player against DM styles of play, and get some players to trust their DM.
I like alot of the de-coding of the game, and the shift to DM rulings.
No matter how tough my DMs (or I, when DMing) were on players, we never lacked trust in one another, even when we disagreed about a ruling. Given what I've seen on the forums the last several years, I should consider myself lucky, I guess. I've heard the occasional story here or there over the last three-plus decades, but it seems like there are exponentially more "nightmare DMs" these days - perhaps the effect is amplified by people's ability to post and share on forums, etc., I don't know.
There are probably far more theoretical nightmare DMs than actual ones. I think 3E opened the door to thinking that the Rules could be a shield against the tyrannical DM, and they aren't. Bad behavior is bad behavior. If rational discussions don't fix the problem, no amount of rules will. That I have seen, more tension arises at the table as a result of Rules Lawyering.
I'll admit, I've been pretty fortunate in my DM lineup over the years. There's only been a couple of exceptions (one a glaring one, but a thankfully short-lived one) that I can recall, but no ruleset could fix that behavior. All the extra codification that came with later editions only served to scare the good DMs (again, relating personal experiences and not universal truths here) away from those editions. They sought wiggle room in the rules, but they were consistent and impartial with that wiggle room so it worked wonderfully.
The great exception I will concede is organized play. I think a dependable ruleset is necessary for it to work as intended, so people don't encounter vastly different experiences from table to table.
Awesomeocalypse wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Awesomeocalypse wrote:
I've never been biased as a DM but all DM's if they are not careful can come across as bias even if they are not. I do a lot of things to safeguard against that perception. I write up a lot in advance. If the enemy pulls off a nice ambush, it's because I had it written up as one of their strategies in such and such circumstances ahead of time. I find that figuring out the plans of the enemy in an abstract way in advance is an excellent way at learning about those enemies as characters and playing them fairly.
I also play monsters to their intelligence. At least up to 18, beyond that I have to wing it. 
. If you play a dumb monster too smart that is cheating in my book unless that dumb monster is led by someone smart.
Emerikol. wrote:
As a DM I prefer to be the arbiter of the rules and not some all powerful force imposing my will on the players. DM fiat is a bad word at my table, the more the rules cover and the closer to RAW I can run the game with it working like it should the better.
"Rulings not rules." sounds like a cop out for bad game design. What do we want for our money besides well written rules, it is WoTC staff's job to publish a good solid set of rules. When a software company releases a game and the math is as bad as 5e is people cry foul, with D&D we have people praising them for basicly doing a bad job and saying "Just fix it at your table."
Paraxis wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
I think it's pretty rude and insulting to say or imply the D&D 5e devs have no "basic understand of math". People on these forums keep shouting it from the rooftops but it doesn't make it true.
Not every bit of the game needs to be finely sculpted to measure everything in such detail. Sometimes a general rule is a BETTER rule than a bunch of tiny specific ones. I don't think the devs lack math knowledge, I think they purposely designed the game such that common sense and reasoning and good judgement were as important as a table full of numbers. In fact, that means they DO understand the math and CHOOSE to employ it only where necessary, and rely on DM judgement for the other situations. Now, one might disagree with that design method, but it doesn't give them the right to throw around accusations and insults about the devs.
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
I've asked Mike about it on Twitter, specifically mentioning Hobgoblin and Bugbear damage. Will see what he says.
Paraxis wrote:
If someone craves an RPG that codifies and has rulings for every aspect, where DM intervention barely exists, then maybe something akin to GURPS makes more sense. D&D has, as far as I can tell, always been more collaborative in-the-moment than that. Obviously it's a sliding scale, but I feel 5e lands nicely on that scale for my players and I. It also has a side-effect of encouraging players to explore what they can do moreso. This is even in comparison to 4e and some of 3.5e.
D&D is non-algorithmic.
In the most recent game I played, a player who had never played D&D before wanted to know if he could use his Arcana skill to produce some kind of magical effect. He wanted to pass through a wall. I explained that doing THAT, or pretty much any magical effect, would require having the actual spell.
He seemed a bit incredulous. "You mean I jump, climb, sneak, intimidate, make/disarm traps, and attack all by rolling the d20, but I can't do anything magical with it?" Which did kind of make me stop and think. Everything else in the game is so freeform, where numbers dictate the nature of the action. But explicitly magical actions in D&D are almost esxclusively hidden behind these discreet packets of mechanics where you don't get to roll d20s and have less control over WHAT exactly you're doing. All magical effects are codified.
A freeform skill based magic system would be really cool.
"I want to pass through the wall."
"What kind of wall? Thin wood? Thick stone? Reinforced blood iron forged in hell?"
"Just a thin wooden wall."
"Okay, that's an...ummm DC15 Transmutation check."
Paraxis wrote:
I pay them to make things so I don't have to deal with them.
I'm more than capable of making up my own game.
If they are too incompetent to do it themselves, why should I pay them to tell me that I can?
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
As a DM, I love this Rulings feature of the new D&D. As a player, I double-proficiency love it. Why? Because then we are STORYTELLING TOGETHER.
Ten years ago, I would have given you the finger if you told me that the DMs rulings were more important than the printed rules. But that was when I had a DM who, in my first session with them, set up this scene - 3.5 D&D:
(Long story, feel free to TLDR).
Town being attacked by "Black Riders".
Characters - Ivstin (me), new Paladin to the group
Krog (H-orc Fighter)
Jellene (Halfling Wizard)
Stryke (Elf Rogue)
Troy (Human Cleric - War domain)
Ivstin, the new member to the party, and a Paladin - Dex/Cha based, draws a Longbow while positioning himself above the city gate. Everyone's eyes boggle and the DM announced "Paladins don't use Ranged Weapons. You aren't proficient."
I blink a few times and open the book to double check my proficiencies. "Well, it says I get all martial melee and ranged. If this is a campaign specific rule, that's cool. I can adjust."
DM: "Oh? It does? Nevermind. Go ahead."
So, I continue. What follows is glorious battle. My bow, many enemies down. I eventually leap off the top of this gate, use gravity on my side to attack the rider. That looks like this:
Ivstin runs and draws his greatsword, leaping through the air to try and land on the black rider, 30 ft below, and drive his sword into the vile creature.
DM: Ok, make a jump check. (Ivstin rolls a 24) Wow, that's really good. Ok. Even with that check, you're falling 30 feet. So that's 6d6 damage.
Wait. What? I ask him "Why is that 6d6? It's 1d6 per 10 feet."
DM: "The damage system doesn't account for acceleration due to gravity."
Those of you that know physics would understand that if it did not account for accel.grav. then it would be a static damage amount no matter the distance. The increase in damage is the increase in falling speed. Yay physics.
Ivstin decides to let it go and just be happy with playing instead of DMing. "Ok, I'll take it. These people are worth saving."
Krog: "WHAT IS THAT HUMAN DOING?!" - Hey DM, wouldn't all that 6d6 go into the rider?
DM: I guess so. Let's try that.
Jellene: "He's so going to die! Hahahaha! one one 111!"
DM: You fall 30 feet. I'll give you a +2 to attack him as if you're charging.
Ivstin rolls a critical threat, but fails to confirm the crit. The damage is 2d6+2 + 3d6 while he takes 3d6 himself (DM decidd to go half and half on the falling damage).
DM: You SKEWER him and nearly cut his horse in half. Roll a Reflex save.
Ivstin rolls a 9.
DM: Well... That sucks. You also get impaled on his black blade.
Ivstin hits the ground, a black sword in his gut. He rolls, pulling it out.
DM: Make a Fortitude save.
Ivstin rolls an 11.
DM: Ewww... you're going to need help for that.
Me: With what?
Troy: Yeah, I don't have remove disease. Mummy rot is going to kill you.
Me: But I'm a paladin...
DM: And?
Me: We're immune to disease at level 3.
Silence rocks the table.
DM: NOT THIS DISEASE! God, what do you think, you can just play and be the biggest head at the table? No one is immune to mummy rot.
"You are immune to all disease, even magical disease like Mummy Rot." I quote.
DM: Ok FINE! A priest walks up and cures you, congratulating you for your valor as the other riders leave.
Krog: "Human! Who are you? You have fought more bravely than anyone I have seen."
Ivstin thanks the Halforc. "I am Ivstinus Wistun, Knight of The Platinum Father. I saw your axe swing with power and valor as well, neighbor."
Stryke: Why isn't he trying to kill Krog? Dont' paladins have to kill orcs? He's Chaotic Neutral.
DM: Yeah, you cannot be friends with him. You lose your paladinhood if you do.
Me: "Neighbor, stand still." - I cast Detect Evil. Is he Evil?
Krog: No, he isn't.
Me: "willingly associates with evil characters."
DM: I wish we had never brought you into this game.
THE END.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
I think that a few clear rules is fine, but I have to admit that I honestly think too much DM adjudication is a bad thing. First it puts more of a burden on the DM which isn't good for any DM but especially for new DMS. Secondly, I have played with many bad GMs. GM where I got the feeling that it was the DM vs. th player vs the DM and the player together creating a story and I think a lack of clear rules make it easier for these DMs to engage in their PC abuse.
Now, to be clear a DM can change whatever rule in whatever system he wants as he is the DM but when you have a system that has clear cut and clearly defined rules it becomes harder and makes it more clear when the DM is just being a putz. For example, I know one person who I consider a fairly decent guy and a friend but as a DM it has gotten to the point in one of my groups where no one wants him to run a campaign (in any system we play not just DnD), because of the level of lethality he brings into the game and it is basically just a hose fest against the PCs. This DM does not like GMing 4E because 4E makes it very hard for him to kill PCs without being just outright blatant in what he is attempting to do. So, while a DM can change the rules in any system, absolute rules do clarify things absolutely. This gray area makes it very keen for GM abuse. Needless to say this GM already likes DnD Next and has offered to run it. Eveyone in my group shot him down and stated we would stick with 4E until somone else steps up to run.
I'm not saying that I will not play DnD next but the fact this guy likes makes my Spider Sense tingle and a bunch of stuff left to GM adjudication is not going to help
Tony_Vargas wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
ivstin wrote:
Fallstorm wrote:
Bud_the_CHUD wrote:
I think it's a bit of a cop out to claim that a rules light system is not a set of rules. It is a set of rules. 5e is a complete game. They do advise DM adjudication in place of a specific rule in places because DM adjudication in their opinion will produce a better result. I happen to agree.
It's kind of like the way a ship comes into harbor. If you had to write down in exact detail every move the guy steering the ship has to make in advance, you'd have a very complex document and you'd have a lot of ships sitting on the sand bar. Instead you have a person driving who has the tools to make judgments just in time. He steers the ship right into it's berth without a problem.
It's not a fact that complexity is better in every case. In the old days, laws were written briefly and to the point. Judges were expected to interpret the spirit and intent of the law using common sense and judicial experience. Nowadays instead we have seven thousand page documents written in complex legalese that no one can possible comply with unless they hire a dozen philadelphia lawyers. That is where the excessive need for specificity has gotten us. So no it's not always good.
Going to partially quote some people from another forum in response to "it's okay if the rules to a RPG are half-baked, a good DM can make rulings to make the game work!"
*
There aren't that many good DMs. And one of the purposes of good game design is to make an average DM behave like a good one. One way they do this is by letting them focus on the game rather than dealing with the crap that the half-assed game designer left in there because they were either lazy, incompetent, or didn't have the time to do their job.
"Isn't the cure to all the crap just good DMing?" makes about as much sense as "Isn't the cure to cars crashing just good driving" as a reason to not include seat belts, airbags, a roll cage, or a crumple zone and for motorcyclists to not wear helmets.
*
The thing is DM is hard and the main guidance DMs get is adventures (or other DMs)
Beginner adventures could do new DMs a service by including boxout sections explaining why certain things are a bad idea:
"If he needs money why doesn't the Halfling steal my players stuff while they sleep?
Because he's the first NPC they've encountered and if you do that you teach your players that no NPC can be trusted and they are better off just killing them on sight. Please don't groom murder hobos."
Or similar.
*
I mean look at it this way. I am perfectly capable of sitting down with my friends and playing make-believe without any sort of rules, in completely freeform rp, and having a blast.
A game's rules need to contribute to this in order for me to think about using them. If your response to "these rules are bad" is "a good GM can work around them," then my response is "then why use any of them?" If I have to spend time deciding which rules are fun and add to the game and which are bad and detract from it, that is an obnoxious level of additional work you're making me do. I mean, if a good GM is capable of making that distinction and knowing when to discard a part of the game, they're probably also good enough to moderate straight rp; I'm not sure why "this is a partially bad game" is acceptable, or why being this constant amateur game designer as you separate wheat from chaff is a better use of your time than just going all out with the freeform.
I guess, theoretically, if the actual good rules were utterly fantastic, it might be worth spending time on that, but I would not describe even the best parts of Pathfinder as "utterly fantastic."
Emerikol. wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Bud the Chud wrote:
ivstin wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Robins Laws of Good Game Mastering, pages 9-10 wrote:
In response to Noon and Titanium,
Perhaps we need more DM training then instead of a straightjacket set of rules. Perhaps they should write a really good book on the subject and just keep it for all editions. It's really cross edition knowledge. The problem is that there are a zillion ways to play and all of them are not the same and some are not for everyone. I'm sure my style has it's haters just like I hate some other styles. Maybe a bunch of playstyle chapters wouldn't hurt either.
I've found that once you find a really good DM it is very hard to go back to an average or poor DM. Good DMs never lack for players in an area with any reasonable population. Good DMs drive the hobby and bring in new players. So helping to foster good DMs is a great way to grow the game. I know of too many groups that treat DMing like a job that you draw lots to see who has to do it. A good DM loves being a DM and prefers it in many cases. I agree that it's not for everybody but there are a lot of people out there that could be good DMs if "brought up" right and taught.
Making an encyclopedic rules system to try and bind a poor DM with guard rails is a recipe for a boring campaign that ends in disaster. The sooner the DM starts learning how to adjudicate situations the better because it is an essential characteristic of any good DM. Keeping them in their rules heavy playpen is only going to result in average and poor DMs staying that way.
Emerikol. wrote:
iserith wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Guest855761860 wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Gazra wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Gazra wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Gazra wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
I'm so glad that all the people who decided they hated 5e 2 years ago have adjusted their views based on further evidence. /sarcasm
Seriously, kids, when do you stop crowing about a game you don't like?
What's the end game here? What is your win condition?
Do you not understand that people have subjective desires for a game?
Do you not see that the things you hate are the things we like?
Creezus, it's not a zero sum game. My liking a system doesn't preclude you from liking somethign different. Is this your hobby? Why not actually play the games you enjoy playing. Or take up needlework. Because this stuff? This thread? It's depressing.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
JonWake wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
Gazra wrote:
Just to inject some positivity, I think the new version looks fun. If I weren't worried about real bloodshed from my group for suggesting they buy ANOTHER set of books after 3.x and 4e, I'd probably pick up the full set!
"When has justice ever been as simple as a rulebook?"
-Commander William T. Riker
Paraxis wrote:
Polaris wrote:
eleran wrote:
Thought I'd just offer up the perspective from someone totally new to D&D and pen and paper RPGs. I love the way things are set up. To be honest, one of my fears getting into it that it'd be endless lists and rules to keep track of. The way it was presented in the rules seems fantastic. I'm DMing for the first time for a bunch of friends who have never played. I think the tone of the new rules is incredibly inviting with just enough complexity to be interesting but open enough to keep the emphasis on the fun stuff. Well, at least what I think of as fun.
Emerikol. wrote:
KuiperDragon wrote:
jonwes wrote:
jonwes wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Guest855761860 wrote:
jonwes wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
I like the "rulings instead of rules" emphasis, but I play with friends in my house, or in a friend's house.
I think Rule #1 should be the Golden Rule. Be nice to each other, to the players, to the DM. Just have fun playing the game. After that, it really doesn't matter. It can be any ruleset at that point, and you can have a fun time.
Gazra wrote:
A well trained DM will handle new problems easily. You only have to make your group happy. Any static set of rules will in some cases not feel right. I'd much prefer groups settle on what they think is plausible instead of ramming something down their throats. Instead teach them how to set a DC that reflects the world they are providing.
In the end static rules will always fail to cover something. The DM will have to adjudicate a situation at some point. Better to develop some skill as a DM. What some of you are wanting is some way to force a DM you don't agree with to see it your way. That is a bad outcome.
My experience is if you offer a good game you will have players. Obviously those who live in isolated areas would be an exception.
Gazra wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
So what I'm hearing here is that 4e was perfect as it was for you. So why not keep playing 4e? Seriously? Why keep adding to the 'noise' side of the noise to signal ratio?
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
JonWake wrote:
"Ruling, Not Rule" is fine by me as it leave DM room to wiggle things and interpret others, which is cool to me as long as its not used to excuse defective rules and force me to houserule things to work as intended, such as The Impenetrable Darkness because of irrational heavily obscured/darkness/viision rules or the HD Recovery mechanic after long rest vs Always Round Down rules. Otherwise this relates to a well known fallacy.
I prefer making rulings for things left out rather than against things put in. In other words, as a DM i can make any call i want at my table and don't even need guidelines for that, but i prefer to make them to fill "holes" rather than to patch "cracks"...
I agree that any rule that is written should work and not have an obvious flaw like the HD round down issue. I'm not even against some rules. I just believe that trying to create a legal contract of a game as a way to bind DMs to a particular style of play is a recipe for disaster. I prefer cleaner simpler rules where the DM uses guidelines and principles to make informed judgments and ruling.
Also, another major strawman, is the "DM may I" argument loosely affiliated with the "learn to play the DM" trope. Just like I learn how this world works through study and experience, learning how the DM adjudicates things is no different. The DM will set the tone and feel of his world. As long as he is fair and consistent, then such an approach works. The only time the social aspect comes into play is when the DM is not doing his job. I'm not going to predicate my game on that assumption.
I feel like some of you can't even concieve of a DM any other way which is sad. It's a very adversarial attitude. I also get the feeling that you think combat is a wargame and you just use the "pieces" and play a match against the players without regard for who the monsters are or their intelligence.
As DM, my primary job is running the world. That means for me at least I have to know my world. I have to understand the NPCs/monsters. I have to know the game and the world well enough to adjudicate fairly whatever goes on in the world.
Emerikol. wrote:
"Ruleings, not Rules" is how my family games worked. It started with "Could I try this?" or "How would I be able to do this?". which, when properly done, leads to the DM and the Player co-adjucating a new ruling, not fighting over a rule. An Example is using a large pot as an improvised weapon, making an investment in something, and the ever classic "My rogue with ranks in Craft (Painting) has sold a painting worth over 10K before the game even started." (I rolled seriously well on that prologue adventure. And then I became even more filthy rich, and that lead to mythic pigments)
The point being, the DM and the Player work together to create something; the player reacts to the npc's plans, and the dm reacts to the newest crazy stuff that the players pull out (like starting a school and orphanage using pocket change and 10 bards with lyres of building: we then had to find teachers).
Emerikol. wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Polaris wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Gazra wrote:
JonWake wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
Gazra wrote:
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
I think I'm a good DM because I have happy players and I have fun too. If I quit my job and worked at it full time I could DM a group every day of the week. I regularly turn people away.
if that is your experience then you are a good DM. The key is finding the style that suits you and do it well. There is not just one style. Being good only requires you have a style that is fun for you and your players.
A good book on DMing would teach you how to find a style that fits your personality and how to do that style well.
I've removed content from this thread. Discussing moderation is a violation of the Code of Conduct
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Ramzour wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
My experience is the same as Ramzours. People can make a reasonable judgment given a situation especially if the book gives good guidelines on setting DCs in general.
If you give a DM a specific rule you are giving him a fish. If you teach a DM how to adjudicate then you are teaching him how to catch his own fish.
Looking up a rule often bores the players and frustrates the DM. I never look up a rule. If I don't already know it I just make an on the spot ruling. An imperfect ruling is far better than freezing up the game.
Nicodaudel wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
"Except you are against giving him a pole or a hook, just give him a variety of worms and figure it out."
What? No one uses dynamite anymore?
DemoMonkey wrote:
For fishing?
DemoMonkey wrote:
A better way is to play a guessing game with the lake until you get it right and all the fish just jump into your boat.
Or they don't. That's fine too.
Gunthar wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Like Em, I've yet to see anyone in this thread defend sloppy work. In fact, I'll do him one better and say I don't even care if designer X wants to claim it's sloppy "on purpose." If I think a system has been slapped together, I'm not going to use it, much less pay for it, and I assume most everyone else would respond the same way.
It seems a bit much, however, to use any and all examples of open-ended or "missing" rules as proof that R&D is slapdash, incompetent, math challenged, etc. As I said in my previous post, some rules inevitably require clarification or outright fixing, but that doesn't prove anything more or less than how difficult it is to nail every single jot and tittle of a big project.
Equally important, I've yet to hear anyone in R&D claim X was purposely left screwed up or broken because the game is about "rulings, not rules." There's plenty to debate regarding that catchphrase, including whether it's primarily a marketing slogan, but as is all too often the case, this thread illustrates how often we end up talking past one another rather than engaging in constructive debate - how open ended is too open ended? when and where does a rule (or lack thereof) interfere with gameplay? does D&D in particular invite, or even require, more or less rules of a given type? etc.
Emerikol. wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Whenever somebody compares Next with 13th Age regarding "rulings, not rules" I miss the mentioning of the fact that any "rulings, not rules" attempt requires solid advice on how to reach the "rulings" in a productive, healthy way as envisioned by the designers of that game. When I look at 13th Age, the game has just that. The 13th Age rulebook is full of advice on what the design paradigm of that game is and how a DM should and could handle the "rulings" part. I am not talking about the strictly mechanical aspects of the game, for example how do I roughly calculate this and that in comparison with the level of any PC and the CR of the monster or the DC of a certain save etc. That for me is a must-have anyway. I am especially talking about information about the status of the relationship between DM and players and how everybody should fill out their individual roles (not in the combat sense, you know, leader, defender etc., but what the role of the DM and player as an interpreters of the RAW are, what should the players be able to do and how they should and could fill out their roles).
When I read the Basic Rules, I see a lot of power with the DM and that is where the emphasis of this game lies. Not so in 13th Age, a game in which player input is also required by certain mechanics (Icons, One Unique Thing, ritual magic and stuff like the wizard's Polysyllabic Verbalizations or the ranger's Terrain Stunt for example). 13th Age even posts the different opinions of the game designers to form solid advice on what to do and how the game is supposed to be played.
Now, what does that mean? In my opinion, as has been mentioned before in this thread, "rulings, not rules" only works well if there is a common understanding of the power structure between DM and the players. In Next, the power lies with entirely with the DM and he/she has absolute authority. It even says so in the text of the Basic Rules, ultimately, the DM is the authority on the campaign and the setting and you often read that players have to ask for "permission". But the advice in the Basic Rules on how to wield that power is very sparse. I think that we can read about using that power in the DMG, at least I hope it will be in there. By then, a lot of groups will have started playing, though. So you have a lot of power but not a lot of advice on how to handle it regarding the type of game you want to play. If a 13th Age kind of game is at all possible with the Next Basic Rules - and that for me is a big if.
Comparing this to the setup of 13th Age by mentioning the two games in one sentence with "rulings, not rules" therefore reaches a little far, IMO. The power structure (again: not power per level/monster/trap/etc , but power of the DM in relation to the power of the players and the other way around) of that game is so different to Next in that even the free 13th Age SRD makes it clear how much input players could and should have. A clear understanding of how the game should be played is already part of the 13th Age SRD RAW. So the tone of 13th Age is completely different. And because of that it is easier to play with "rulings, not rules" in it. I think that the Basic Rules lack that.
I really like 13th Age and I am not very fond of Next. And this is one of the reasons.
Snot-Elemental wrote:
If you want detailed advice for how DMs should apply the rules, I think the DMG is what you want. The Basic Rules are just the meat (not to mention unfinished).
Personally I am very much in favor of a DM empowered game. Maybe that is another reason I didn't really get into 13th Age. I admit I didn't notice this distinction. If the DM's goal is a fun game and he is really trying to achieve that goal then it works. If the DM is a jerk it does not.
I really don't understand why there's such a fuss about having open-ended rules.
You make the rules clear when needed and vague when plain English and common sense are better.
Take stealth for example. I don't like having bullet points on when you can use your skill and I'd rather have general guidelines. What does "you can use your steatlh skill if your opponent is not looking at you" mean in a game that doesn't have rules for facing? Do you really want rules for facing or would you rather stick to plain English and skip all the clunky facing rules? And what about if a guard is just looking in the other direction because of distraction? And does that relatively simple plain English definition even work? Can't you sneak from one hiding point to another without being noticed when you're 100 yards away? Even in plain sight?
Sometimes you just have too many corner cases and making a bullet point list of when you can use your abilities fails miserably.
I think it's best to have both. "You can do this in situations X, Y, Z. At your DM's discretion you can use it in other cases. Use your common sense, you're not playing Monopoly". And it's always at the DM's discretion anyways... Don't you guys remember the tripping an ooze threads? If your DM says no, the answer is no. There's nothing you can do about it other than find another DM.
Ramzour wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
I think good rules allow five different people to look at a situation common to most games and rule it more or less the same way, applying the appropriate rules to fit. When this happens, the rules are clear.
I think bad rules allow five different people to look at a situation common to most games and rule it in different ways, applying different rules that all seem to apply in one fashion or another. When this happens, the rules are unclear.
For the purposes of this distinction, I am excluding the possibility of people acting in bad faith, those with the goal of a play experience different than what is intended by the rules as written, and anyone not trying to play RAW.
quindia wrote:
Snot-Elemental wrote:
I look forward to seeing the rules options that will likely be presented in the DMG.
Also, perhaps ideas about various ways to handle issues (in a "what worked for me" sense, not in a "thou shalt play this way and only this way" sense) might come up in a future Dragon magazine article, or Wotc article, or popular gaming blogs, or even on messageboards like this one. Then people can see various options (far more than could fit into the core books) and take what they like.
A fun thread entitled "Adjudicate THIS" might be a good learning exercise. Present likely scenarios that could come up during game play and see how everyone would rule in that situation (with rules references). This is done in general all over the boards for this or that. A compiled thread to just practice adjudicating and seeing where the rules are clear and unclear might be useful.
iserith wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Snot-Elemental wrote:
About 13th Age, the thing that's key about that game is that it understands that you can empower the DM and the players. A lot of people think that this is a zero-sum issue and so they think that if you empower the players that means you neuter the DM (see Emerikol's comment below) and vice versa. But in an RPG you can provide freedom and power to everyone at the table, both DM and players alike. Since 13th Age gets this, it provides more nuanced advice than "the DM is in charge" even as it gives the DM huge amounts of discretion.
People have suggested that we'll see more advice along these lines in the DMG, but Mearls has said that the DMG is going to be focused on being a tool kit rather than providing general advice on running games. It sounds like they are going to rely on the internet videos to provide that type of instruction.
Emerikol. wrote:
13th Ages lack of narrative mechanical unity did it in for me. So I only surmised that player empowerment was something anti DM empowerment based on what you wrote. Personally I don't see them as necessarily opposing though.
I see the DM as a highly flexible rules engine akin to a highly advanced computer ai that at some point in the future we might create. I expect the DM to be consistent for the same reason I expect a computer to be. The human DM should fairly judge each situation based upon principles and beliefs encoded in his psyche. It doesn't really matter if one DM rules the same as another. You don't need cross game consistency. There will inevitably be a lot of overlap due to all DMs being human with similar experiences of reality. It's not necessary though. Players just need the DM to be reliably consistent and fair.
If player empowerment means going into director stance then I'm not for that.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
As an occasional GM I would rather have a well thought out and tested comprehensive world rules that I can adjust with printed house rules than a world concept without rules. That is why I buy world books, so I don't have to do everything myself. ;)
Boojum
JohnLynch wrote:
Nicodaudel wrote:
Nicodaudel wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
iserith wrote:
Nicodaudel wrote:
iserith wrote:
Nicodaudel wrote:
I agree with you Nic that there are two questions any player/DM needs ask about a rule.
1. Does it achieve the goal it intends to achieve?
2. Is the goal it's intending to achieve the goal I want from my game?
I believe in modern times good rules are those that meet requirement #1 and are judged by most/many people to also meet #2. For any given game though, the majority doesn't matter. Even if the whole world loves rule X except for me and my group it's still bad for my game in the sense of #2.
Whereas, it's fair to say that #1 could in theory be judged objectively even if when put to the test some people can't be objective in judging it.
iserith wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Nicodaudel wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Emerikol. wrote:
Snof Elemetal wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Awesomeocalypse wrote: