I'm super, extra polite with a cherry on top about it, but my house rules document is a binding, non-negotiable contract that all players agree to before showing up to session 0 (I always email the document out to everyone well in advance).
By showing up to session 0, you are signing the contract and I take it very personally if someone still has a problem with it when they do show up and I'm usually not very polite about it if after that point someone exhibits a problem with it.
That said, I run the rules as written RAW + House Rules, I rarely make an exception though the House Rules document is very flexible towards the narrative.
Many of the existing rules are horribly envisioned, and even more poorly written. (I cannot even fathom who WOTC hires for editing). I have altered them so not are they more realistic, they are far more restrictive to the chars. And those House Rules and what is left of the existing rule set ARE RAW, and there is no deviation. There is no Rule of Cool. There is no whining about "But that is what my char would do". If players don't like them, there is the door.
The rules are written to be ambiguous on purpose to allow DMs flexibility in how they interpret them. Some DMs want to put the rules above all else (which sounds miserable, but you do you), while others want flexibility to have the “rule of cool” or homerules apply, using the ambiguity of the rules to say “this is my interpretation and the interpretation we use at this table.”
As I noted earlier, Wizards clearly has the ability to hire people who can write perfect rules - the Magic: the Gathering comprehensive rules are extremely tight in their construction - but the “bad editing” of D&D is pretty obviously a conscious choice that reflects the developer’s goal of granting individual playgroups some leeway to do what they want. The “poorly written” rules are not a bug; they’re a feature of the game dating back to the 1970s.
Obviously, we can and do bend the rules. Actually, that's one of the DM's roles: adjudicator of the rules. This can be also divising new rules for ones that does not fit the circumstances. And the DM has unlimited and unchallangible authority on this front, so it behooves them to use it measuredly and judically. If they want to give monsters new abilities, or legendary actions that are unlike any other seen? That is in their authority to do so. If they want to make a certain type of monster immune to certain effects? That is in their authority to do so. If they want to ask for a check using charisma and athletics, that is in their authority to do so. If they want their monster to use spells that don't exist... you get the point.
My only caution is to be consistent in your rulings. If you resolve that something works one way, make sure it works the same way next time. If this ruling disrupts your players carefully laid plans and power combos (first of all, why are you letting people multiclass?) then let them change it, because, as you've guessed, that is certainly in your authority to do so.
There is zero excuse for the disaster known as Hiding, or Surprise, or Falling Damage, or Reactions, or Bonus Actions, or any number of rules that confuse DM's, let alone players.
Those are rules that confuse DM's and players? Those in particular seem pretty clear in both RAW and RAI in the PHB.
I'm super, extra polite with a cherry on top about it, but my house rules document is a binding, non-negotiable contract that all players agree to before showing up to session 0 (I always email the document out to everyone well in advance).
By showing up to session 0, you are signing the contract and I take it very personally if someone still has a problem with it when they do show up and I'm usually not very polite about it if after that point someone exhibits a problem with it.
That said, I run the rules as written RAW + House Rules, I rarely make an exception though the House Rules document is very flexible towards the narrative.
Many of the existing rules are horribly envisioned, and even more poorly written. (I cannot even fathom who WOTC hires for editing). I have altered them so not are they more realistic, they are far more restrictive to the chars. And those House Rules and what is left of the existing rule set ARE RAW, and there is no deviation. There is no Rule of Cool. There is no whining about "But that is what my char would do". If players don't like them, there is the door.
The rules are written to be ambiguous on purpose to allow DMs flexibility in how they interpret them. Some DMs want to put the rules above all else (which sounds miserable, but you do you), while others want flexibility to have the “rule of cool” or homerules apply, using the ambiguity of the rules to say “this is my interpretation and the interpretation we use at this table.”
As I noted earlier, Wizards clearly has the ability to hire people who can write perfect rules - the Magic: the Gathering comprehensive rules are extremely tight in their construction - but the “bad editing” of D&D is pretty obviously a conscious choice that reflects the developer’s goal of granting individual playgroups some leeway to do what they want. The “poorly written” rules are not a bug; they’re a feature of the game dating back to the 1970s.
I have cranked up a 1e game recently, so re-learning all the rules in that. The original books are an awful mess, because Gary Gygax was running on a shoe-string budget. But 5e....when WOTC and Hasbro is awash in cash to hire competent editors??? There is zero excuse for the disaster known as Hiding, or Surprise, or Falling Damage, or Reactions, or Bonus Actions, or any number of rules that confuse DM's, let alone players. Surprise rules don't need "leeway". It should be clear and explicit. Rule of Cool is the crutch of weak players and DM's who don't take the time to actually understand the rules, no matter how arcanely written they are.
What exactly is confusing about these rules?
Rule of Cool also generally isn't about 'not understanding' the rules but more about bending the rules in the moment to allow for something fun or creative.
Also the bolded part kind of sounds like something the rival character in a shoenen anime would say. Allowing rule of cool is just a style of play some people anjoy and some don't. It's not about being a 'strong' player lol.
Rule of Cool is the crutch of weak players and DM's who don't take the time to actually understand the rules, no matter how arcanely written they are.
I am an attorney. The majority of players in my playgroup are all attorneys. We are literal professionals at reading and interpreting rules - often rules much more “arcane” or poorly written than those found in D&D. The insinuation that our playgroup using the “rule of cool” comes from not reading or rules rules is laughable.
Rather than insulting, how about you just respect that others want to play the game differently than you… and maybe realise you are in the minority on this. Then you might better understand why Wizards writes the way they do - they want to create an environment that appeals to the majority of their players.
Galileo is a bad comparison. What he was arguing about was an objective truth. Plus, he was being a jerk about it.
D&D is a game. Objectively, the only way to play the game wrong is if you're not enjoying it or enjoying it less than you could have otherwise. If it helps him to enjoy the game if he plays with a slightly different set of rules? Great! It's even in the manual that that's what he should do!
We can argue over RAW and RAI are, but the only bad D&D is D&D that you're not enjoying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I've long held this belief: "One of the few ways to play D&D wrong is to insist other tables should play your way."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
And finally, I will (politely) come down on stuff that's clearly not in the spirit of the rules. Burning spell slots 5 minutes before the end of a long rest is just silly.
Actually the specific line in your linked topic is:
If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it.
This indicates that you CAN cast spells, as long as you aren't doing it for more than one 1 hour at a time.
I interpret the one hour only applies to walking. One hour of walking and one hour of fighting are so different in terms of effort that it does not make seem to make sense to group them together. If one hour applies to fighting too, that means you can theoretically wake up in the middle of the night, fight off a necromancer and their horde of zombies, and then go back to sleep and still get the full long rest.
In legalistic terms, that phrase is ambiguous and does imply that you can spellcast for less than an hour without negating the rest. I've certainly seen more legalistic interpretations come from Crawford and stated as the official line.
That said, saying that you can do 599 rounds of combat, which is probably more than I've ever done in my life, and it still not count as resetting your rest and having a 5 minute catnap at the end renders you fully rested and restored - even taking someone with 1HP left and no spell slots to 100% fresh and ready to go - is absurd. I'd never let that fly on my table, even if WotC declared it so. As is, I'd argue that any spellcasting negates the rest, any fighting, or a substantial amount of walking (by which I mean, you can walk around the camp, but anything that would be counted as travelling is substantial) is intended to cancel the rest.
Yet another example of where WotC needs to tighten up its wording.
Though grammatically ambiguous, the common sense reading would be that “one hour of” only applies to the walking; any fighting, casting spells, etc. forced a restart of the rest. It could probably do a better job with the ordering of the terms so it goes “fighting, casting of spells, or one hour of walking” to avoid any confusion.
That said, the most important phrase, not set aside with the dashes, is “strenuous activity.” That gives the DM pretty big leniency in determining how to interpret what is strenuous. A mage casting a simple spell when their watch is last—say some kind of fun non-combatant thing for flavour, or something that seems rather small in context, could be ruled to not deny that mage the benefits of the long rest.
Wizards clearly has the ability to hire people who can write perfectly unambiguous language - one need only look at the Magic comprehensive rules, which are the single most coherent work of legislative drafting I have ever seen - but they purposefully want to have some ambiguity in D&D. Part of what has always made D&D successful is that each table can interpret the rules to fit their playstyle, and I would bet Wizards builds in ambiguity on occasions specifically to foster an environment where interpretation is encouraged.
This shows the therir is a grey area between rules and guidelines. There are places where the rules are worded ambiguously, there are also a ton or optional rules so even if a DM say they go strictly by the rules they still need to clarify whether they allow feats and/or multiclass, whether they use flanking rules what encumberance rule they use and so on. All this needs to be sorted in session 0.
Not allowing any spell casting / fighting on a long rest can cause issues if you are having encounters during a long rest. Say the party come out of the dungeon late in the evening, say 10:00pm. They decide to travel a short distance away and set up camp at 10:30. The DM / dice dicide that they are noticed by a pack of wolves in the final watch of the night who think they would make a decent meal but the party quickly dispatch them, it is now around 5am and the party have just had 30 seconds of combat which included the casting of a few spells (cantrips count as spells). In such circumstances it is silly to prevent the party from moving on before 1pm (without suffering exhaustion). I do however agree it is also silly to allow the wizard to cast mage armor 1 minute before the end of a long rest so he starts the day with all his spell slots. I think a sensible house rule is that at the end of a long rest all spells with a duration of 8 hours or less end.
Wizards clearly has the ability to hire people who can write perfectly unambiguous language - one need only look at the Magic comprehensive rules, which are the single most coherent work of legislative drafting I have ever seen - but they purposefully want to have some ambiguity in D&D. Part of what has always made D&D successful is that each table can interpret the rules to fit their playstyle, and I would bet Wizards builds in ambiguity on occasions specifically to foster an environment where interpretation is encouraged.
If the purpose is to make the game more modular to appeal to a larger audience, instead of using ambiguity which can potentially cause dispute, I think it is better eliminate ambiguity and use optional rules instead. In this case, one of the options would be allowing up to one hour of strenuous activity for long rest, and the other option is not allowing any strenous activity.
In this scenario for example, if the OP interprets long rest more conservatively my way and their player interprets the ruling more leniently, that could cause an avoidable dispute. If we were to use optional rules instead of ambiguity, the optional rule would have highlighted the differences and alerted the OP to see which option they and their table prefer. Since Wizards put in the effort to offer optional rules to appeal to a wider audience, including variant rules on rest, I do not see the need to include ambiguity in the system as it just ends up causing communication problems.
As I noted earlier, Wizards clearly has the ability to hire people who can write perfect rules - the Magic: the Gathering comprehensive rules are extremely tight in their construction - but the “bad editing” of D&D is pretty obviously a conscious choice that reflects the developer’s goal of granting individual playgroups some leeway to do what they want. The “poorly written” rules are not a bug; they’re a feature of the game dating back to the 1970s.
The reason the rules are vague is that they decided (probably in reaction to 4e, which went the other way) to use natural language rather than defining a technical vocabulary, and natural language is inherently vague (people create technical vocabularies for a reason). The advantage to using natural language is that it feels friendlier to read; the disadvantage is that you wind up with vague and incoherent rules at times.
And poorly written rules are absolutely a bug. If you want to grant individual playgroups leeway, you just tell them "and if you don't like this rule or feel it produces nonsensical results in a particular situation, go ahead and change it", don't try to sneak it in through the back door by making rules that are inconsistent or incomprehensible.
Are they though? Are 5e rules poorly written, inconsistent or incomprehensible?
In certain areas, yes. For example, the rules for perception and concealment are a complete disaster.
On 4e, I recall rules that I disagreed with (sometimes strongly), but with a few exceptions (skill challenges, which they rewrote several times because even they couldn't figure out how they were intended to work) I don't recall any rules where I couldn't figure out what the rule actually did.
Are they though? Are 5e rules poorly written, inconsistent or incomprehensible?
In certain areas, yes. For example, the rules for perception and concealment are a complete disaster.
For sure. There are also no rules for individual senses besides sight, but luckily there are no creatures that get bonuses only to non-sight checks. Oh wait...
It really makes hiding seem even more broken that crouching behind a small boulder not only makes the enemy forget where you are, but also makes them unable to hear or smell you...
Communication is key. Whatever how DM run their games and rule things out, the most important is to communicate clearly the guidelines for their game. I favor campaign doc that incorporate campaign inclusions/exclusions, variant rules and houserules etc.. shared ahead of the game, as well as session 0 or post session 1 discussion. Then during the campaign too, when leveling up, choices of new feat, features, spells, magic items etc can also be clarified if needed.
Left is ruling during sessions, where DM have to adjudicate rules on the fly as they see fit.
My personal take on this is that «rules are guidelines» is rule 0 and the most important of all.
That imply that if people wants to sidetrack this rule and take everything else as a rule of law because that's their way of fun they can. The purpose of a game is to have fun together. I can join their table because it's a kind of fun I can have and it helps learn the rules ( to better choose which to drop or alter later at my table).
For me, the most important part of rpgs and what makes them different from other boardgames is creativity: there are people who wants to be creative by expressing their ideas inside a rigid frame of rules, there are people who want to express their ideas by altering this set of rules, there are people who wants to be creative through their character.
There are many other ways to have fun, some people just like to be there with friends. The goal for me as a player is to become able to be welcoming to any way that isnt mine while expressing mine the best (read: the most enjoyable for me and the others) I can.
When I discovered D&D, a friend made a simple DMT out of tables. I was solo and i created a wizard because it's cool. My friend advised me against it. I roled a 1 on a d4 and got 1HP. I opened the Door, reached the Monster, saw the Treasure and died on round 1. It wasnt cool but it was funny.( I remember I took light as a spell, dont remember if I had another. Just checked, no, I just had light.)
My reaction back then was to learn rules in order to survive the game. And I wasnt the only one, it was a consequence of the game of being raw and unforgiving. So people asked for more rules, aka for more ways to act, react and interact, so TSR delivered. Rules were the way to express ourselves, the only way, we thought. And it became a source of income so tons of rules arrived, and then editions and advanced editions, because it was profitable for them and the people who hanged to the game were a niche who could digest tons of rules and got fun out of it. But most other persons just ran away. In my country where people are often lazy and creative, it meant people turned away from D&D and went to games with more simple and coherent rules like the competence table of Call of Cthulhu. I did, gladly.
What we didnt know all along was that the creator of the games werent playing it that way themselves. There are famous recollection of 1 on 1 games of Gygax with a friend who went through a mega deadly dungeon without throwing one dice. Just a 10 feet pole and talking, lot of talking together. "I will kill you with my clever traps" "I will survive by being as clever as you, now describe precisely what I see" "OK describe precisely what you do". But they did understand and respect the rules: for starter he took a rogue not a wizard to solo a dungeon.
Rules are important in that they give a frame of reference for the base actions a character can do and for the consequences. They establish the urgency of the action. No urgency is boring. Rules are not important to the point that they must describe precisely everything because it's impossible and it kills the game for most players. It's then important to be able to extend the rules through roleplaying during the tactical phase because it then extend their action and they can be creative about it. Otherwise the gameplay becomes stale and repetitive. Every of those little invention has not to become a house rules because the too many rules problem again. It's important to be able to do house rules when it's important to the flow of the table or the coherence of the world. Also it's fun to be a designer. It's important to respect the rules that exist because a lot of time has been put into their creation by competent designer. It's difficult to be a designer. Break the rules and you break the frame of reference: back to start.
So i really think every sides of this discussion are right, it's more a question of timing. We have to alter the game, that's how it is designed; when to alter it is the difficult part.
I was on Twitter (first mistake), when this player posts that she had her char hurl itself off a bridge, fall some 150 feet, and at the last moment before taking damage, used the Artificer Artillerist's Force Ballista firing towards the ground to negate all damage. When I said that is totally wrong, she invoked Rule of Cool, how her DM had her make some kind of Dex check to see if she triggered it before her char hit the ground, and how her DM thought it was "creative".
I was on Twitter (first mistake), when this player posts that she had her char hurl itself off a bridge, fall some 150 feet, and at the last moment before taking damage, used the Artificer Artillerist's Force Ballista firing towards the ground to negate all damage. When I said that is totally wrong, she invoked Rule of Cool, how her DM had her make some kind of Dex check to see if she triggered it before her char hit the ground, and how her DM thought it was "creative".
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That sounds pretty much working as intended. The situation where the rule of cool is problematic is when there's disagreement about what is cool.
If the player describes their plan before jumping off the bridge, and the DM says "That sounds cool, go for it"... no problem.
If the player describes their plan before jumping off the bridge, the DM says "No, it doesn't work that way", and the player says "Okay, I'll do this other thing instead"... again, no problem.
If the player describes their plan before jumping off the bridge, the DM says "No, it doesn't work that way", and the player says "But Rule of Cool"... problem.
If the player jumps off the bridge and then describes their plan, the DM is left with a choice between 15d6 damage and letting the trick work, which is putting unfair pressure on the DM (most of whom prefer not to kill PCs), which is again a problem.
That sounds pretty much working as intended. The situation where the rule of cool is problematic is when there's disagreement about what is cool.
If the player describes their plan before jumping off the bridge, and the DM says "That sounds cool, go for it"... no problem.
If the player describes their plan before jumping off the bridge, the DM says "No, it doesn't work that way", and the player says "Okay, I'll do this other thing instead"... again, no problem.
If the player describes their plan before jumping off the bridge, the DM says "No, it doesn't work that way", and the player says "But Rule of Cool"... problem.
If the player jumps off the bridge and then describes their plan, the DM is left with a choice between 15d6 damage and letting the trick work, which is putting unfair pressure on the DM (most of whom prefer not to kill PCs), which is again a problem.
It becomes a slippery slope. DM allows one thing that is outside of the rules. Next person wants to do something just a hair further outside of the rules. Player C then pushes the envelope a tiny bit further. DM says "no". Player C says "Favouritism!!! You let Player B do X and my stunt Y is almost the same."
The best answer would be an additional point:
If the player describes their plan before jumping off the bridge, and the DM says "Interesting, let's see what happens....Give me a moment.....Hmmmm....I looked up the rules on that, and your idea does not work, you take 15d6 blunt force damage".
I keep hearing about player agency, and allowing players to control their actions. So be it. The player decided on an action, tried to execute it, and there were results of that action.
Who is slipping down this hypothetical slope? No one is trying to make you allow it at your table. Why do you care if someone else is having fun differently from you? If it happens in someone else's game its their problem. Most of the time, you won't even know about it.
And if you really want to get down to it, the DM said it was OK, so it was RAW according to Rule 0.
Imagine believing your hand held cannon had enough recoil to launch you over a hundred feet into the air.
Because that is how physics works, an object thrown straight up hits the ground with the same force it felt going up (not counting air resistance), so to counter the acceleration of a 100 foot fall, you need an equal force that would have thrown you 100 feet up from rest.
Though is suppose some kids playing d&d haven't learned the laws of motion yet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The rules are written to be ambiguous on purpose to allow DMs flexibility in how they interpret them. Some DMs want to put the rules above all else (which sounds miserable, but you do you), while others want flexibility to have the “rule of cool” or homerules apply, using the ambiguity of the rules to say “this is my interpretation and the interpretation we use at this table.”
As I noted earlier, Wizards clearly has the ability to hire people who can write perfect rules - the Magic: the Gathering comprehensive rules are extremely tight in their construction - but the “bad editing” of D&D is pretty obviously a conscious choice that reflects the developer’s goal of granting individual playgroups some leeway to do what they want. The “poorly written” rules are not a bug; they’re a feature of the game dating back to the 1970s.
Obviously, we can and do bend the rules. Actually, that's one of the DM's roles: adjudicator of the rules. This can be also divising new rules for ones that does not fit the circumstances. And the DM has unlimited and unchallangible authority on this front, so it behooves them to use it measuredly and judically. If they want to give monsters new abilities, or legendary actions that are unlike any other seen? That is in their authority to do so. If they want to make a certain type of monster immune to certain effects? That is in their authority to do so. If they want to ask for a check using charisma and athletics, that is in their authority to do so. If they want their monster to use spells that don't exist... you get the point.
My only caution is to be consistent in your rulings. If you resolve that something works one way, make sure it works the same way next time. If this ruling disrupts your players carefully laid plans and power combos (first of all, why are you letting people multiclass?) then let them change it, because, as you've guessed, that is certainly in your authority to do so.
Those are rules that confuse DM's and players? Those in particular seem pretty clear in both RAW and RAI in the PHB.
What exactly is confusing about these rules?
Rule of Cool also generally isn't about 'not understanding' the rules but more about bending the rules in the moment to allow for something fun or creative.
Also the bolded part kind of sounds like something the rival character in a shoenen anime would say. Allowing rule of cool is just a style of play some people anjoy and some don't. It's not about being a 'strong' player lol.
I am an attorney. The majority of players in my playgroup are all attorneys. We are literal professionals at reading and interpreting rules - often rules much more “arcane” or poorly written than those found in D&D. The insinuation that our playgroup using the “rule of cool” comes from not reading or rules rules is laughable.
Rather than insulting, how about you just respect that others want to play the game differently than you… and maybe realise you are in the minority on this. Then you might better understand why Wizards writes the way they do - they want to create an environment that appeals to the majority of their players.
Galileo is a bad comparison. What he was arguing about was an objective truth. Plus, he was being a jerk about it.
D&D is a game. Objectively, the only way to play the game wrong is if you're not enjoying it or enjoying it less than you could have otherwise. If it helps him to enjoy the game if he plays with a slightly different set of rules? Great! It's even in the manual that that's what he should do!
We can argue over RAW and RAI are, but the only bad D&D is D&D that you're not enjoying.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I've long held this belief: "One of the few ways to play D&D wrong is to insist other tables should play your way."
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
This shows the therir is a grey area between rules and guidelines. There are places where the rules are worded ambiguously, there are also a ton or optional rules so even if a DM say they go strictly by the rules they still need to clarify whether they allow feats and/or multiclass, whether they use flanking rules what encumberance rule they use and so on. All this needs to be sorted in session 0.
Not allowing any spell casting / fighting on a long rest can cause issues if you are having encounters during a long rest. Say the party come out of the dungeon late in the evening, say 10:00pm. They decide to travel a short distance away and set up camp at 10:30. The DM / dice dicide that they are noticed by a pack of wolves in the final watch of the night who think they would make a decent meal but the party quickly dispatch them, it is now around 5am and the party have just had 30 seconds of combat which included the casting of a few spells (cantrips count as spells). In such circumstances it is silly to prevent the party from moving on before 1pm (without suffering exhaustion). I do however agree it is also silly to allow the wizard to cast mage armor 1 minute before the end of a long rest so he starts the day with all his spell slots. I think a sensible house rule is that at the end of a long rest all spells with a duration of 8 hours or less end.
If the purpose is to make the game more modular to appeal to a larger audience, instead of using ambiguity which can potentially cause dispute, I think it is better eliminate ambiguity and use optional rules instead. In this case, one of the options would be allowing up to one hour of strenuous activity for long rest, and the other option is not allowing any strenous activity.
In this scenario for example, if the OP interprets long rest more conservatively my way and their player interprets the ruling more leniently, that could cause an avoidable dispute. If we were to use optional rules instead of ambiguity, the optional rule would have highlighted the differences and alerted the OP to see which option they and their table prefer. Since Wizards put in the effort to offer optional rules to appeal to a wider audience, including variant rules on rest, I do not see the need to include ambiguity in the system as it just ends up causing communication problems.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
The reason the rules are vague is that they decided (probably in reaction to 4e, which went the other way) to use natural language rather than defining a technical vocabulary, and natural language is inherently vague (people create technical vocabularies for a reason). The advantage to using natural language is that it feels friendlier to read; the disadvantage is that you wind up with vague and incoherent rules at times.
And poorly written rules are absolutely a bug. If you want to grant individual playgroups leeway, you just tell them "and if you don't like this rule or feel it produces nonsensical results in a particular situation, go ahead and change it", don't try to sneak it in through the back door by making rules that are inconsistent or incomprehensible.
In certain areas, yes. For example, the rules for perception and concealment are a complete disaster.
On 4e, I recall rules that I disagreed with (sometimes strongly), but with a few exceptions (skill challenges, which they rewrote several times because even they couldn't figure out how they were intended to work) I don't recall any rules where I couldn't figure out what the rule actually did.
For sure. There are also no rules for individual senses besides sight, but luckily there are no creatures that get bonuses only to non-sight checks. Oh wait...
It really makes hiding seem even more broken that crouching behind a small boulder not only makes the enemy forget where you are, but also makes them unable to hear or smell you...
Communication is key. Whatever how DM run their games and rule things out, the most important is to communicate clearly the guidelines for their game. I favor campaign doc that incorporate campaign inclusions/exclusions, variant rules and houserules etc.. shared ahead of the game, as well as session 0 or post session 1 discussion. Then during the campaign too, when leveling up, choices of new feat, features, spells, magic items etc can also be clarified if needed.
Left is ruling during sessions, where DM have to adjudicate rules on the fly as they see fit.
My personal take on this is that «rules are guidelines» is rule 0 and the most important of all.
That imply that if people wants to sidetrack this rule and take everything else as a rule of law because that's their way of fun they can. The purpose of a game is to have fun together.
I can join their table because it's a kind of fun I can have and it helps learn the rules ( to better choose which to drop or alter later at my table).
For me, the most important part of rpgs and what makes them different from other boardgames is creativity: there are people who wants to be creative by expressing their ideas inside a rigid frame of rules, there are people who want to express their ideas by altering this set of rules, there are people who wants to be creative through their character.
There are many other ways to have fun, some people just like to be there with friends. The goal for me as a player is to become able to be welcoming to any way that isnt mine while expressing mine the best (read: the most enjoyable for me and the others) I can.
When I discovered D&D, a friend made a simple DMT out of tables. I was solo and i created a wizard because it's cool. My friend advised me against it. I roled a 1 on a d4 and got 1HP. I opened the Door, reached the Monster, saw the Treasure and died on round 1. It wasnt cool but it was funny.( I remember I took light as a spell, dont remember if I had another. Just checked, no, I just had light.)
My reaction back then was to learn rules in order to survive the game. And I wasnt the only one, it was a consequence of the game of being raw and unforgiving. So people asked for more rules, aka for more ways to act, react and interact, so TSR delivered. Rules were the way to express ourselves, the only way, we thought.
And it became a source of income so tons of rules arrived, and then editions and advanced editions, because it was profitable for them and the people who hanged to the game were a niche who could digest tons of rules and got fun out of it. But most other persons just ran away.
In my country where people are often lazy and creative, it meant people turned away from D&D and went to games with more simple and coherent rules like the competence table of Call of Cthulhu. I did, gladly.
What we didnt know all along was that the creator of the games werent playing it that way themselves. There are famous recollection of 1 on 1 games of Gygax with a friend who went through a mega deadly dungeon without throwing one dice. Just a 10 feet pole and talking, lot of talking together. "I will kill you with my clever traps" "I will survive by being as clever as you, now describe precisely what I see" "OK describe precisely what you do".
But they did understand and respect the rules: for starter he took a rogue not a wizard to solo a dungeon.
Rules are important in that they give a frame of reference for the base actions a character can do and for the consequences. They establish the urgency of the action. No urgency is boring.
Rules are not important to the point that they must describe precisely everything because it's impossible and it kills the game for most players.
It's then important to be able to extend the rules through roleplaying during the tactical phase because it then extend their action and they can be creative about it. Otherwise the gameplay becomes stale and repetitive.
Every of those little invention has not to become a house rules because the too many rules problem again.
It's important to be able to do house rules when it's important to the flow of the table or the coherence of the world. Also it's fun to be a designer.
It's important to respect the rules that exist because a lot of time has been put into their creation by competent designer. It's difficult to be a designer. Break the rules and you break the frame of reference: back to start.
So i really think every sides of this discussion are right, it's more a question of timing. We have to alter the game, that's how it is designed; when to alter it is the difficult part.
a really fun experience for all involved?
Gosh, using magic to stop yourself from dying in a fall. How OP. What will those crazy kids think of next?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That sounds pretty much working as intended. The situation where the rule of cool is problematic is when there's disagreement about what is cool.
I try and stick to the rules, if something seems like a mistake or. Though if a rule makes no sense and it's hurting my players, I'll change it.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Who is slipping down this hypothetical slope? No one is trying to make you allow it at your table. Why do you care if someone else is having fun differently from you? If it happens in someone else's game its their problem. Most of the time, you won't even know about it.
And if you really want to get down to it, the DM said it was OK, so it was RAW according to Rule 0.
Imagine believing your hand held cannon had enough recoil to launch you over a hundred feet into the air.
Because that is how physics works, an object thrown straight up hits the ground with the same force it felt going up (not counting air resistance), so to counter the acceleration of a 100 foot fall, you need an equal force that would have thrown you 100 feet up from rest.
Though is suppose some kids playing d&d haven't learned the laws of motion yet.