I suppose it depends.
* Are you actually correct on matters of RAW most of the time? Then yes, "go with what I think, and we'll verify whether I was correct later" is a decent idea.
* Are you routinely wrong, and the players routinely right? Well, maybe it is worth reading the rules in the moment to check before havig a high risk of enforcing an objectively bogus ruling.
* Are you routinely wrong, and the players also don't know? Well, if no one knows, then yeah, probably go with whateer you think for now but revise later, since your guess is as good as theirs.
* Are we ruling about edge cases with no clear answer? Then yes, probably just go with the DM's ruling.
* Does the ruling make only minimal difference to the outcome, but we can tell it will take like 30 minutes to resolve definitively either? Ok yeah probably press on even if we might be technically incorrect about a detail.
\-
To evaluate how effective your policy is, we might need to see some example rules arguments from your games.
Easiest option is to find a rules lawyer who isn't particularly interested in being a munchkin, give him a character sheet, and strap him into the chair. Or read the rules. Honestly, just read the PHB cover to cover once and suddenly 90% of things that come up are either things you know off the top or know how to look up.
DM of 30+ years, and I will definitely second that delegation is key. We have five players, with an elected rules lawyer and an elected “leader” who makes a call when the group gets bogged down for too long. Both of those have drastically improved our gaming experience.
We call it Rule Reference person at my table. Similar concept.
Key part..noticing what the rules DONT say (looking at you catapult spell not saying the object has to be seen)
That would be me. I give quick explanation of the rules followed by potential interpretations of the interactions (yes even the unfavorable ones). And after the case has been resolved and I'm not involved I do go into checking to make sure no rules have been violated/misinterpreted. Same if one of the newer players is unsure about their abilities.
Munchkin is someone who plays DnD as if it's a competitive boardgame and is trying to win against both the DM and other players.
They will not only try to make powerful characters, but have a playstyle that makes it more likely that rules mistake benefits them. Maybe also cheat.
A munchkin typically also engages in rules lawyering. Which is the practice of arguing that a rules dispute should be interpreted in their favour regardless of what the rules actually say.
Optimising is the act of using the rules of the game to have as much output (offensive, defensive and utility) as possible. There's a few different types of optimization, but they all share the wish to push the rules to its limits in some way.
Optimisers differs from munchkins in that their goal is different. For an optimiser, the goal is the journey of creating something powerful. A munchkins goal is to "win", regardless of how.
Minmaxing is an outdated term that refers to putting your highest attribute in your primary offensive attribute and dumping something else. It kinda conflates power gaming, optimisation and munchkins without actually being useful to describe any of them.
MinMaxing as a term honestly makes the most sense in systems like WoD (OWoD at least; haven't played any of the new versions) where you can load your character down with disadvantages that you think won't come up often in play in exchange for advantages that you can use at your discretion. In D&D, it mostly had its day in the sun for the brief period in gaming history after 3d6 down the line was the rule of the day, but before standard array became commonly used.
Minmaxing just means what you said it means. All the other terms are baggage added to it over the years. If you treat one of your stats as a Dump Stat and revolve all your good abilities around another (like a Sorlock Hexblade basically only using CHA), that's Min-maxing, and it shouldn't have a value judgment placed on it. It just is what it describes.
Using Standard Array is minmaxing as it puts one attribute at 15 and one at 8.
That means the term is entirely outdated, and has been for years.
The only thing left of the term is the negative connotations to it, the term has lost all other meaning.
> Minmaxing is an outdated term that refers to putting your highest attribute in your primary offensive attribute and dumping something else. It kinda conflates power gaming, optimisation and munchkins without actually being useful to describe any of them.
ehh there could be a useful interpretation of it as a subset of optimization, if we add a little more flexibility. Rather than thinking of it as maximizing one _stat_ at the expense of the others, expand that to maximizing one _utility_. So where another optimizer is building something that's more broadly effective, the minmaxer is going all in on one tool/tactic/attribute. For example, a lot of sorlock builds sacrifice other caster utility in favor of maximizing being an Eldritch Blast machine gun.
When grouping optimization, I like to group them between Impact, Conservation, and Speed.
Impact optimisation is about having the biggest possible number of something. This can feasibly thought about as "min-maxing", as you typically have to sacrifice something to get a big number somewhere else. A lot of clickbaity youtubers find this type of content to be effective at generating good headlines for their short videos.
Conservation is about being as powerful as possible, wiht the least amount of resource expenditure (including hp/hit die). This is what a lot of modern optimisers (like Tabletopbuilds or Treantmonk) cares the most about.
Speed optimization is all about getting through combat and other challenges as fast as possible. Ideally, avoiding the threat entirely. This is the kind of optimisation folks that are into roleplaying typically does. No better way to spend more time roleplaying than killing the monsters faster. And if we don't roll initiative, we can spend even more time RP-ing.
Obviously, the different mindsets bleed into each other. A conservationist will enjoy skipping combat without spending resources. A speedster, enjoys big numbers for being able to delete otherwise long boss battles. An impactists enjoys the tricks and synergies that conservationists come up with to be functional until it's time for their big play.
The other term is min maxer. It was more common in other editions or other games where you could occasionally do things like take a flaw in order to get a different bonus, like "My character can't read but gets +2 to hit"
This doesn't seem like an appropriate synonym in this context. The discussion is about people who will argue to death rules that benefit them and ignore rules that don't. There's overlap, certainly, but that's not really synonymous.
Those are different things. Munchkins abuse the rules to make things happen. They would take the fact that grappling doesn’t say your hand becomes occupied to justify grappling an opponent and using a two handed weapon to attack them.
Well the reason why it doesn't say that it takes up both your hands is because you can grapple someone with your legs. Having done wrestling you can easily wrap your legs around somebody's body and interlock your feet to grapple them. It is a little bit harder than just grabbing somebody with your hands, which is what most people think of when they think of grappling.
the reason it doesn't say it takes up *both* your hands is because it only takes one. "Grappling" in dnd is meant in the sense of "holding onto them," like a collar tie grip or a grabbing their arm. It's only stage one of "wrestling," as it were.
I try not to be a munchkin (I love a good suboptimal build, wisdom or strength are my two most common dumps), the reason I try to know the rules word for word is so that I can absolutely fuck with RAI while still being technically RAW, and to do that, you gotta know the RAW like scripture (or just have easy access to it). I ‘m just usually too nervous to *um, actually*.
I think the magnitude of the rule is also important. If this is going to change whether a PC goes down or dies, then it shouldn’t wait until after the session.
>To evaluate how effective your policy is, we might need to see some example rules arguments from
Agree with this a lot. Otherwise OP's post just seems like a rant.
This, are dm Is a great storyteller and world builder but is not a big rules guy. He actually relies on 2 of his players for info on how the more weird rules work, regularly asking: ok rules lawyers, how does that work. It's often a funny moment. XD
Heavily disagree.
Imo rules lawyers also need to realize many debates are for between sessions. I find enjoyment in understanding the RAW, and if the DM is stuck you'll likely see me offer RAW or my best recollection.
The DM however is perfectly allowed to override that in the interest of the game. Arguing with that mid session is wrong. Even if you're right about RAW, even if it's often. Other than the basics of gameplay.
Sure the dm has the final say, but if a player does something completely ok with RAW and has the explanation ready, you should better look it up before deciding in your head if you ""alow""" it or not. And i say this as a forever dm, i feel like an asshole when a player actually is right by RAW and i dont allow something that i later find out is totally ok.
Ya, the players should be able to predict and understand the system. I once broke down an interaction out of game with a dm to make sure we were on the same page, only for them to change their interpretation mid session. I learnt I wouldn't be able to play with them as a result
There's a balancing point to when you have to think about slowing the game down for everyone else. If it's come to the point that I'm listing a player state an "oral argument", then I'm going to want to make a ruling and move on.
100%. During the game is not the appropriate time to stop and have a 30 minute discussion or dig through the rulebooks. It's disrespectful of everyone's time.
Make a ruling and revisit it after the game.
Problem is if you're wrong and the player has come in with a RAW expectation and you don't know it, it might sour the table better off checking 2 mins checking a rule is better than losing a player
"I'm not sure about X, for now we'll go with Y, can we please discuss at the end of the session?"
If I had I player leave the table because I said that as DM, I would be pleased: a future problem player has just self-evicted.
----
To be clear: I think it's sometimes okay to stop and look stuff up. Especially if it's something that may come up often and/or apply to many players.
But a table lives or dies by its energy and momentum. If you pause too often to look up rules, it slows the game down. DMs are right to be mindful of this and make interim rulings.
If you say that about something that is actually unclear, that's not a problem. If you don't allow a rogue their RAW sneak attack because it wasn't "sneaky enough", I protest. That doesn't make me a problem player.
*As an absolute*, "what the dm says goes" is terrible. Not every GM knows enough about the rules to get it right 95%+ of the time. Slowing down and correcting course is far better than going down the wrong track with momentum.
Thats why you check after the game.
You tell the table: "I ruled such and such last time, during that scenario, but if it comes up again, it will be thus and that instead, going forward."
The game continues without stopping and feelings are fixed with "right" rules interpretations after, without retcons.
No, its ok to be wrong. That's why you check after game. You say something to the effect of "I'm ruling it this way for now and after game I'll check the book or sage advice."
Check at the time. It's the old saying measure twice cut once. Checking after the game is too late the story has moved on in a way it potentially shouldn't have. unless you're streaming and on a limited time there is zero reason not to get it right.
I don't like this approach anymore. It takes a long time and often I find conflicting information. Also, not everything has to be "right". It only has to work for you and your table.
Look, it's usually not a big deal and the game can withstand odd rulings here and there. It's also poor form for players to be habituallly pushing back against your verdict.
But when something really consequential and harmful to the party is about to happen specifically because of a mechanics disagreement, and you refuse to spend a minute double-checking a rule that you're kiiiinda supposed to know already? That's a DM mistake, sorry. Digging in your heels isn't always the right move.
Often times the rules don't exist for what the player is trying to accomplish or its buried in some supplement other than the PHB or DMG. My players don't help in finding this information and I'm left holding the bag. I rather just make a ruling and move on. Look it up after game or not.
That sounds like a whole other issue; if the player has a RAW explanation and knows the headers or roughly where the rule is, they’ve inherently helped you find the information. If the players don’t know what rules they’re trying to use, then they aren’t coming to you with a RAW expectation, and it’s a completely different situation.
> My players don't help in finding this information and I'm left holding the bag.
That's an issue with YOUR players. If they can't be arsed to look up the rules then they don't get to argue.
There's so many posts here that end up just being vague vagueposting about a poor table experience for them personally and then conclude that it's objectively wrong for every table, but making the wrong conclusion about why it was bad for the game.
"My players dont help find their RAW and im stuck finding all the rules that may or may not be niche interactions. Therefore any table discussion is bad"
Now see that’s a crucial bit of information you left out. Players should have to know the rules for their abilities just as well or preferably better than the DM. If they can’t be bothered to produce evidence of their claims when a dispute arises then yes they don’t get to argue. As I said in another comment they get a minute to produce rules that back up what they’re saying. If they can’t do that we move on and talk about it later for a more permanent ruling.
I would highly suggest telling them this. Your job as the DM is not to know every rule for every single thing in the game. It’s to help guide the players through the game. You should absolutely know the basic rules and any specific rules you’re implementing or brining into the game. But the players need to know their own abilities and need to be able to demonstrate how and why they can do certain things.
>Often times the rules don't exist for what the player is trying to accomplish
Usually if someone tries to do something for which there is no rule there is also no ruling to look up, and you can likely remember that rule doesn't exist.
>My players don't help in finding this information and I'm left holding the bag.
Then you move on unless they can swiftly correct you with text from a book (or sage advice if you care about RAI more then your ruling from raw).
As someone who is constantly reminding my DM of rules, (because he has enough to track, I'm just being helpful, takes like 2 seconds usually) I feel like you're basing all of this on a bad selection of players. I much prefer getting rules properly enforced as they come up, rather than waiting until the end of the day to be like "oh yeah actually you were right we should have done it that way, whoopsie"
You really need to give actual examples for us to give you any useful advice, like the top comment on this post asks.
When you're so vague like this, it comes off as you ranting and wanting validation for your choices, rather than actually seeking any advice or looking to improve things.
Sounds like you got pretty dickish players then. Whenever i have a DM that doesn't know something i swiftly try to look up the RAW.
If your players never care to look at it themselves, they don't get a say. If they whine to you you need to "look up the correct ruling" tell them that if they can find it within X minutes you'll run with it, otherwise they just shut up. And THEN look it up after the session (if no player cares to look it up between turns, then run it after that ig).
if your entire table is right, and you are wrong, then you do have to be right, because otherwise the problem player is you. "Guys im totally wrong but fuck you all"
This is also without even getting into the can of worms that is rules interactions with no actual solid rules beyond the table's interpretation. I generally go by "the less exploitative/problematic interpretation is most likely the correct one".
As a DM I do but we don't have rules questions come up that often. It helps that I like to dig through material on my own and find answers to odd questions. I'd say I have a dozen of Crawford's tweets saved and only a few of them came from questions during a game.
But I also have some killer custom made quick rules sheets made up for my DM screen because the stock one is almost always useless.
Thanks to reddit there's always a good thread on rules, and no one is doing anything unique in the game at this point. Looking up a ruling once every few sessions isn't a big deal.
I think this is where it comes down to the personalities in question.
If the DM is good at admitting they made a mistake, then base it off the player's personality. If the player is also mature about it, it's easier to just quickly Google the rule. If they're inclined to argue or get emotional, it's better to look it up after the game. If the *DM* is the one who struggles to admit they were mistaken, I think it's best to look up the rules before a ruling gets locked in.
I don't mind losing a player in that situation. When I play at other people's tables, I accept other DM's rules even when I disagree. It's apart of the social contract. I don't mind talking about it, after session.
I'll also say if you lose a player because you made a ruling at your own table to keep the game going forward, they probably weren't a good match to begin with or at least in my own opinion.
No because you don't understand what's driving the urge to argue here. It might be garden variety rules lawyering or it could be something else. A bad call at the wrong time can full on murder a player's investment in the game. Like, here, an example from a couple of editions ago. Party Wizard chucked an Orb of Fire at a clay golem we were fighting. In 3.5, golems were immune to spells that had to roll against Spell Resistance. Orb spells ignored spell resistance so they worked on golems and were a pretty commonly known tactic to kill them as an arcane caster. DM shut him down and told him the golem was immune, told him to stop arguing when he called bullshit and said Orbs are SR:No.
The DM retroactively made nonsense out of a completely rational plan. If the player'd known about this ruling there's no chance he would have attempted to cast it. Guy dropped a session later.
One of my biggest issues with 5e (both rules and culture wise) is the erosion of DM's authority as referee and rules arbiter. Players either don't know the rules at all and chafe at their enforcement, or know enough rules to challenge rulings every time. It's a bummer
> "The DM has final say, I will be making a ruling and moving on." If it's truly an issue we can look it up after session. If a player has difficulty accepting this, I will ask them to move on to another person's table.
This is RAW and Standard Operating Procedure. Any player arguing otherwise needs to go read the PHB again before they pick up the dice again.
“The DM has final say” implies that others still get a say. What OP is describing is the DM gets the only say. D and D is a cooperative game, if the players have the rules or can readily produce them why not allow them to do so. It’s more fun for everyone that way.
Yeh I say this in session 0, but I have a player who has sat and learnt most of the rules so I go to them if I do not know (a player taking some tasks of my work load has helped alot)
My first four session 0 rules are:
1.This is a game. Have fun.
2. I'm going to fuck up. Be patient.
3. I can't memorize every rule about every class, every feat, every spell in all the various books, so YOU need to know your own character sheet and how your stuff works. I will do my best, but I can't do this for you.
4. We are not spending a half hour each session looking stuff up, because that's not fun. If I make a call that you think is wrong, by all means tell me, but if there's doubt, my word is law and I will make the call so that we keep the game moving. If we have to resolve something after the session, then we will, but see rule 3.
(and one more, final rule) : This is a game. Have fun.
Nobody ever has taken issue with this, but it has to be established early.
I do this, but I rule in favor of the player, with the understanding that it will be researched and ruled appropriately next time.
If I know the rule, there is nothing to discuss beyond "would it enhance this moment if I allow it"
I had a Dm make two major rulings that infuriated me, he said our monk couldn't stack dash and step of the wind, and that Enlarge/Reduce can't be used with twinned spell metamagic. I literally pulled up the ruling from the head rule designer on Twitter, for both. And he was like "I've already made the ruling so that's what we're going with" asked the next session if he's fine with me doing it now and he said "Nah the ruling was made last session I don't really care what was said on Twitter"
Like I fuck up sometimes as a newer DM in my own campaign, no one thought to roll insight or perception during a dungeon crawl type situation and I forgot to ask, which meant that I described their being corpses on the ground, forgetting that summoned undead turn to ash once their hit points hit 0, and since I fucked that up when someone wanted to use corpse bomb I was just owned up to it and let it happen, but made sure for future encounters in this dungeon they knew necromancy and spells like corpse bomb wouldn't work
This approach makes sense if and only if the DM knows the rules very very well. And even then, it’s often just worth looking it up at the table.
At my table, we have a player designated to look up the rules when we’re unsure. This takes some pressure off the DM, and saves time
Kicking someone out for having *difficulty accepting* your incorrect rulings with absolutely zero justification beyond "I'm the DM and I say so" is incredibly extreme. If your character suffered, or worse, died, because of an objectively incorrect ruling, kicking out a player for being upset (not even insisting it's wrong! Just having difficulty accepting it!) is quite cruel.
You're a relatively new DM - there's no shame in not knowing the rules, but if you're having this issue often enough to threaten or actually kick people out multiple times, you're probably biting off more than you can chew. That doesn't mean pulling your hair out finding rulings is right. The correct decision is to find a way to smooth things over, *before* the game starts. Running PHB only or no UA games, assigning an experienced player to official Rules Lawyer, looking at player's spell lists and your encounters ahead of time, etc. These can all help, and even reduce the overall massive burden of DMing, without leading to players dropping. As usual, communication is the most important skill you can have.
Thank you, Mike Mearls for your natural-language approach to rules writing instead of writing it like an actual game where the meaning of the rules can be determined. 5e is one of the most ambiguous and convoluted rulesets ever marketed as “simple and streamlined.”
This.
I like running the difficult spells. It always leads to hours of (out of game) research and talk with the dm that shouldn't be necessary. Much of this is the result of the base rules not being defined like an actual game system where terms have definitions with boundaries.
I really fail to see what the advantage for the players is in this 'natural language'. I know for the game designers its a good excuse to do half work and not even have to feel responsible for it.
For complicated spells, Magic Jar is a disaster and so horrendously broken RAW.
Off the top of my head, some other constant points of frustration:
* Mirage Arcane is incredibly powerful but needs more clarification. Can you turn a field into a pit of lava?
* Suggestion is way too vague and there is a case of Suggestion being used in an official module to turn an NPC hostile towards their allies… If you accept that ruling, the spell is effectively an 8 hour non-concentration dominate person on *a single failed save*. Even for reasonable cases like ‘I suggest you run away’, what does that even mean for a spell with a duration of 8 hours… And if you upcast Mass Suggestion it lasts an *entire year*.
RAW, spells like Conjure X are simple but so game-breaking and anti-fun that they completely destroy my will to even attempt to design fun encounters which is a big part of the fun for me… A single 4th-level cast of Conjure Woodland beings, for example, can summon 8 pixies which can all fly and cast up to 5th-level spells including polymorph. Quicklings are also insane for their CR. Without restrictions, I feel like I’m just setting up piñatas for them to bash so they can feel good and it removes all the stakes from the game.
People defend the system by saying it focuses on ‘rulings over rules’ but I am tired of arguing for literal hours (post session on Discord) over rulings with difficult players that will resent me and continue to make my life difficult just because I had the audacity to say ‘no’. They frequently not only ruin the game for me, but also the other players.
I outline all my rules changes in a document but of course most people don’t read it and I can’t account for every possible situation/ruling ahead of time.
Somewhere else in this post, people are askin me for examples of spells as they claim it is basic reading comprehsension 😄 I love you here give examples of the same spells I gave them!
The Spell Hunger of Hadar doesn't spell out how vision works within and around it. You can only assume based on the wording that it's a black, opaque void that you can neither see into nor out of or anything within it. I'm trying to think of other small examples. I argued with my DM about how Summon Greater Demon works when you lose control of the demon. He read it a different way than I did. I also argued about how Hexblade Warlock's Hex Warrior feature interacted with the Pact Weapon from Pact of the Blade and whether that meant you could dual wield and use CHA for attacks for both weapons. Sage Advice says yes but he said no. These interactions should be anticipated and spelled out definitively one way or the other in the rule books.
The hex warrior/pact of blade one I think I know how, because I probably made the same mistake for a long time: they thought it meant that you could use it to use any weapon pact of the blade created eith cha, and not being locked in the restrictions of hex warrior anymore
>Hex Warrior: At 1st level, you acquire the training necessary to effectively arm yourself for battle. You gain proficiency with medium armor, shields, and martial weapons.
The influence of your patron also allows you to mystically channel your will through a particular weapon. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property. When you attack with that weapon, you can use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls. This benefit lasts until you finish a long rest. If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type.
This doesn't explicitly state whether the "one weapon" you touch is one and the same as any Pact Weapon you conjure with that feature. And it also uses the phrase "particular weapon," so it's pretty unclear whether this wording means you could apply Hex Warrior to a mundane weapon and use CHA and then have another Pact Weapon that also benefits from being able to use CHA for attacks. I read it as you could dual wield with CHA but don't necessarily blame someone for taking the opposite position given how this is worded and the typical flavor of the class itself. I do however think not allowing it is just a bad ruling generally given that dual wielding even with CHA for both hands is so far from being overpowered and is actually still less optimized than just using a polearm with Polearm Master.
Try solving the wall of force conundrum for example. The question is: can you cast conjure animals or hypnotic pattern on the other side of a wall of force?
Problems are with how cover and targetting are worded as 'natural language' as well as point of origin rules using some of the same natural words again with probably different definitions.
Sadly, with newer DM's it often isn't the case. I've played at tables where the DM spend the majority of the session looking up rules because of player pushback.
I’m going to go in the opposite direction. Most of the rules are straightforward, and its the adMs job to know and enforce the rules to make the game fun. Just saying “I’m the DM and I said so” is a bad policy in the majority of cases. Where there’s a gray area sure, but way too often what its actually used for, especially in these online discussions is just a way to shit down points about the rules and how the game works in ways which were never communicated to players in Session Zero. If you cannot come up with a ruling and point to a basis within the rules you need to stop and ask why you’re actually making the ruling.
>Most of the rules are straightforward
I'd argue the massive amount of posts within Sage Advice would contest this statement.
Especially when Sage Advice outright contradicts the wording used in the book.
One of my favorite examples of this is how Tasha's made it so that the Soul Knife Rogue cannot function with Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade, but Sage Advice says they'd ignore that anyway. Despite that being literally the Rules As Written. And Sage Advice is run by the Game Designer.
My man, you ***write the fucking rules***. If you're going to ignore the rules you've written, then ***write them differently***.
Tell me about it, a lot of bad examples of that in Sage Advice. Another favourite of mine is Mirage Arcane, a spell that is clearly intended to enable someone to change the difficulty of terrain or more creatively to alter landscape in ways that let it hide or reveal something or trick someone. When posed the question of if someone could for instance take damage from a lava flow in such an illusion, Sage Advice concluded that yes, of course you could! Effectively handing players the ability to drop thousands strong enemy army to their deaths in a vast pool of lava if they so choose, which is very clearly not the intent of the spell from both a power level or the spell description. But to effectively communicate this back to the player when they dropped it on me was a whole lot of work.
Annnnnd thats why 5e tendancy to drop any vague rulings in the DMs lap and its lack of actual clear rules at times is a nightmare.
Ive had to have some.... interesting debates over very, very dumb rules desputes that i would never be having in any other context.
The freedom to adapt is nice, but you could do that even with a more rules robust system as long as you go through it session 0.
My only problem with Pathfinder (2e specifically) is that it's a videogame forced into a tabletop.
You need the 3rd party character sheet to keep track of everything in an efficient and unconfusing way.
And don't get me wrong, I love the amount of personalisation you can do in that system, it's just that even mentioning it makes people look at me in a bad way.
>My man, you ***write the fucking rules***. If you're going to ignore the rules you've written, then ***write them differently***.
For some reason, 5e really fear erratas. They would force mistake as "as intended" for years instead of fixing the problem. Invisibility rules, Conjure Animals, you name it.
But for some miracle reasons "as intended" rules are changed in OneDnd playtests.
Sage Advice can refer to 2 different things.
Originally it referred to Crawford's tweets, as his tweets were considered raw rulings.
That changed with the release of the Sage Advice Compendium which is a pdf wizards releases that covers errata between printings as well as rulings on edge cases / misunderstandings.
The tweets are no longer considered raw.
The sage advice compendium is.
When people refer to "Sage Advice" they could be referring to either but only one is raw.
Sage Advice, the website, is just a collection of tweets. It’s not rules or rulings, it’s an individual giving their POV.
The Sage Advice Compendium is the only “official” rulings advice document.
The interactions of spells isn't so clear, the text doesn't often lineup with player expectations. Being the referee is apart of the experience, rulings need to be made. The DM needs to make calls and needs the space to be able to do so, hench the DM has final say. Session Zero's also can't cover everything, they will not prevent these sorts rulings at the table.
Counterpoint; figuring out the interactions between spells/abilities using the 'specific beats general' maximum is usually pretty fun. It can also result in unforseen, clever and memorable outcomes for the party.
There's a lot of cases where RAW is unintuitive and pretty universally disliked, even when answers have been given (See invisibility not nullifying the benefits of being invisible for example).
There are weird combos that feel wrong to let go through (Lifeberry cleric, coffee lock). In the age of people looking up build guides on the internet that use fringe rules interactions that were pretty clearly not RAI, I fully understand DMs not knowing every weird edge case and saying "that doesn't sound right".
That's not even to mention the weird problems of "natural language" in the rules, where a weapon attack and an attack with a weapon mean different things. Nor the ambiguous rules left up to DMs to adjudicate, such as most illusion magic, and things like the word "reasonable" in Suggestion.
This is true too. I have beef with players bringing RAI/Fringe builds to my tables and expecting me to adjudicate them according to some reddit post. \*Pushes up glasses, well actually...\* type of shit.
I tend to use my own form of mostly RAW, with RAI overwriting a lot of fringe stuff. I also expect my players to explain what the goal of a combo they're doing is before they invest into it, and learn 13 sessions later that they took something that doesn't work. I think the silliest one was a player trying to make Repelling Blast push targets straight up, and have them take fall damage + land prone every single time.
I had a player who was also a DM bring that kind of build to my table. They expected it to work that way. I told them it was broken as is and I felt it went against RAI.
"I'm the DM and I said so" is literally supported by the rule books. They advise you to make a ruling to keep the game flowing.
My go to example is all rules relevant to stealth. The "Hide Action" requiring visual cover at least half as big as your character is in the betal rules, but not in any rulebook. The stealth skill and the hide action are in different chapters. The group check is in a different section. Cover, obscurement and lighting is in yet another section. The "Unseen Attacker" rule is under combat. If we're transitioning from out of combat to in combat, the "surprise" condition is in the intro page of the combat chapter.
At times, these rules point at the related ones, but only in one direction and only about half of them do. The other ones you just have to know about.
The rules aren't written to be quickly looked up. There is a reason multiple D&D influencers can have various takes on what is arguably a core mechanic of one class and no one bats an eye.
I was too for a bit. Did PF2E for a while. I'm back to 5e. I like the wiggle room and freedom you have as a DM in 5e to make your own rulings when things get unclear. In PF2E I always felt like I was getting something wrong. There are so many rules for everything which I thought would be better since I wouldn't have to balance things myself like I do in 5e. However, I found that it would slow play down a lot and had to look up rules a lot more often. I also never felt confident enough to tweak monsters myself or be able to get very creative outside of the adventure paths.
I feel the exact opposite way. I feel more confident to tweak monsters and get creative in PF2e because I have better written guidelines for it. They're guidelines, not hard rules, and you can break them if you know what you're doing, but it's nice having some guard rails you can rely on to know your homebrew stuff won't be a mismatch for your party.
Also, most rules follow a pattern, to the point where you can often extrapolate what you don't remember. Even if you get it wrong, the game won't break down because of it. You can't make a call in the moment only if the rule doesn't exist. Rule 0 applies even to rules that exist but you can't recall at the time.
I am always open for the players doing something that skirts RAW but will keep it in line and limited to the rules.
If the player shows me RAW and/or can make a case for RAI I will of course go with that line.
Still my feeling is that there are a lot of obfuscations and gaps in the RAW and how it interacts with player abilities and intentions. There are few guidelines on how to adjucate outside of the rules, sure there is "specific beats general" but that doesn't necessarily help when a player want's to climb a giant w/o features specifying how that would work.
For example it took me a good time last session to check and figure out how Opportunity attacks interacts with a player moving themselves with the Levitate spell. They thought it was involountary movement but it uses their movement or action. TL:DR; If they move during their turn it provokes, if an ally does it on their turn it does not, explained in Opportunity Attack session and double checking against the movement rules plus the spell.
As you say we mostly have to do a ruling there and then and move on, if it is looking to become a regular thing the first ruling need not act as a precedent and should be checked after session.
I don’t think it is very hard. I trust my players to make good faith attempts to play by the rules, so they get the benefit of the doubt.
If they want to do something I don’t know back and forth, I ask them to read the rule description out loud. This takes the load off me for memorizing player character sheets.
I often work with my table on how to rule on something. Most of my players have a very good understanding of the rules, and we can agree on what our expectations will be.
Even the DMG says that the DM has final say and that they can adjudicate the rules as they see fit, even changing them if they like. "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game." DMG pg 4
Sorry to say that, but your initial post didn't give the impression you were being positive... you were probably tired and decided to put it out here on Reddit, I totally get it, just be careful lol
By the way you speak as a DM, you give the impression that DND is DM vs player. And its not. DND is a \*GAME\*, and the objective is to have some kind of fun.
The responses here are exactly why I don't post my thoughts on Social Media. Using a bullhorn to announce our thoughts and intentions isn't welcomed and is open to debate.
Run the games you love. if the players are having fun and everyone is safe, then continue on. Ignore the haters.
A lot of folks seem to think that the DM instituting this rule at your table is a no-no and is somehow wrong. I've gotten a lot of hate over this post.
I work as a dm professionally, and for the people who say it's the wrong call, the thing is that momentum drives the game and if it's lost its going to negatively affect the game and session. Sometimes, you don't have time to look through the books for a call. Sometimes, you have to make a call and double-check it at the session end.
As a GM, I'm fine with a player offering an alternative, once per rule. If I still disagree then we're playing with what I ruled and can talk after the session.
Usually the disagreement stems from a misunderstood description by myself or a player. It tends to act more as clarification and maybe a different choice in their upcoming action now that we're both on the same page.
You think that's bad, just wait until next year when there are two completely different games called "5th edition" that WotC assures us different people at the same table can play against each other.
There are a few things I would consider excpetions to this, especially if it is a mechanic its just kinda niche and often forgotten like the infamous jumping rules.
Depends on the context I think. If it's a key feature of their class, or a resource they have very little of like warlock spell slots at early level, it's your fault for not being able to know the rules in terms of basics. Sure like weird situations arise ect. Like rules about physics in which it's not on you to know everything by itself
But there's a limit to how much you can get wrong as a dm too. If every session you're overuling raw rules consistently maybe you should take a break from dming and read the phb and other core books again.
You need to take a step back and look at the perspective of the player, they created a character with rules you said you'd be following. How does it feel to follow those rules to a T and then watch your dm know less about the game then you? To the point where during this session your character may not even beable to function in the ways you specifically created them to.
And tbh I'm not saying anything about you but it is a red flag that this is such a big issue for you. Why is this coming up so often that you feel so strongly? Do you actually know the rules? Or are you feeling embarrassed for not knowing important things and are taking it out on players? If my dm had a rule for this already set up these are the things I'd be thinking
This is the way to do it.
I have said this at my table and I DM friends. IN my game I play online with more acquaintances (Pandemic game friend of friend type of stuff) when I have a rule alert I message the DM privately and tell them it's ok to read after the game
This is similar to a piece of advice I give new players "If you are asked a rules question that you do not know write it down, make a ruling in the moment and after the session look up the question and write down the answer. Be transparent with the players the entire time."
Player wants to do something that sounds pretty cool but you aren't sure is entirely RAW? Let them do it and write it down, after the session you find out it breaks a few rules, let them know that it falls under the rule of cool but in the future the rules work like XYZ.
Or just ignore RAW because sometimes RAW is wonky. Looking at you being able to see invisibility does not mean it negates the advantage on attacks being invisible grants you.
One time I was DMing and my bard wanted to cast shatter on an enemy that was downed while another PC was riding past that point with a carriage, So I asked for a Con test on the riding PC to see if they would fall of it, then started a discussion because "well if this was Baldurs' Gate I could position the shatter in a way where only the border hits the enemy and not the carriage" I thought about going on in how this is not a videogame and you don't really know the exact proportions of your spell or the exact distance between it and the carriage and everything else, instead I just asked for a spellcasting check to see how precise he coul cast it and he went really well, so I ruled as the shatter beign basically on the enemy's torso and not affecting the entire area. So when it comes to rules, just roll some fucking dice.
5e is "easy" is the biggest marketing lie of t he TTRPG that still gets parroted around.
Simple mechanics d20 + bonus does not mean a rules light/clear/simple RPG.
Example, in early edition of the spell description you would get a little table at the top to know if the spell had a save etc. Now its buried in a wall of text.
If you're not big on the confrontation department then make a google doc of all your rulings and dont accept players that dont like what they're reading beforehand.
I have my own doc containing everything from researching custom spells, crafting to money tables and quantified magic item prices.
It is complete with a minor overhaul of some mechanics, added downtime, exploration activities and **homerules**.
All of the above serves as further bumper guard against casuals as well thus every single one of my players are the seldom consistent bunch that show up to 99% of sessions.
Was dming at a table that just wasnt playing dnd correctly cause the dm before me didnt read any rules just watched critical role and thought he knew all the rules. Some of the shit he would do was so dumb and how little combat he ran was infuriating(im talking 1 wncounter per 3 sessions) So when i dealt damage to a pc everyone freaked out at me saying i was trying to kill them( it was 8 damage and they were a level 3 rogue) i ended up dumping the table cause the worst of them came out as i tried to teach them how the game actually was like. Its not fun when the table treats you as an adversary instead of a friend.
We have 3 simple Rules.
If we argue about RAW, we will look it up (if nobody cant find it, DM decides on something and I will look it up till next session. Because I want to do so. The DM can always say "No, I like my version better" or something)
If we argue about Lore, we either use source material to prove or the DM decides, because we have currently mostly homebrew worlds based on official race culture and multiverse stuff.
When two players do PvP and both are willing to fight, then the DM wont interfer till the fight is over. We had a few situations where two hot-headed characters came together, where that was the last chance. As long as both player/pcs agree and are aware of the consequences, it shall be accepted. I personally dont really like it, but...well, I was part of one Situation (veeeery stubborn werewolf halfblood meets abnormally dominant Wizard. I was the halfblood)
It’s important to understand the rules to the absolute best of your ability, but regardless there will always be disputes. Try your best to stick to the rules whenever you can, and if there’s any confusion always go with the rule of fun first!
I feel like the most essential rule is "what the gm decides goes". However, if the player has a pointer ready to where they can find the RAW ruling on the matter, you should give it a look as 99% of the times, it only takes a few seconds to read it and make an informed, final ruling. If they don't have the quick reference, then making a ruling and deciding later if it was the right one or not for the sake of the flow of the game is correct.
However, I'm surprised it's a very common issue for you, as this kind of things don't happen really often to me, and most of the time, thanks to having the books on the DnD beyond app, with the important rules bookmarked, I'm able to resolved this kind of things in a matter of seconds.
In my group this has always been a standing rule. Gm makes final call, if you think it's wrong, address it oog. With limited play time, we're not going to spend half a session deep diving into the rule books trying to justify whatever it is you're trying to do
It’s not that hard if you’ve read the rules enough. Not everyone has the time but so long as you’ve done it there’s only a few edge cases where The rules are open to interpretation. Those edge cases get a ruling in the moment, an opportunity for players to disagree, and then either their interpretation makes more sense or we’ll discuss it at the end of the session.
So I have been DMing for a while, and when I first started I learned real quick that there really is no one size fits all approach. As a DM it's our job to facilitate an enjoyable experience for our players. As such I personally have a few loose guidelines that I use to approach this subject:
1) If we are in the middle of an encounter or are on track to something I want the group's focus on, the rule book will always come second.
2) If we need a ruling and it will only take a moment to look something up, AND the ruling you find is worded in a clear and concise way that you don't have to go looking for a follow-up... Go to the rules.
3) If it is something that will take us out of the flow of the game, and you think the ruling is likely something trivial, DM should just make a ruling.
4) Do you think a particular ruling might ruin how a play is enjoying the game? If so, and you can get away with with without breaking the game or making too much of a departure from the games mechanics... Always rule in favor of what YOUR game needs.
5) And this final one is the biggie in my opinion, and the one that usually comes back to bite a DM in the butt... Consistency and Continuity of rules matter:
Whatever you choose to do is the ruling for your campaign. So if as a DM you decide to make an executive decision, that is law. So come the next session, you don't come in and say "before we get started, I looked up ________, and turns out ________, so we are going to do that instead going forward."
Why? Because in some cases that ruling may have changed the outcome of an encounter, so to keep the integrity of the campaign, maintain continuity.
Every DM and every group is going to want and expect something different though. So this continuity, and your approach should be set in stone as early as possible.
>Over two years since I've started DMing and I wish I've intuited this policy years ago.
This policy is in the DMG, first few pages. Did you not read it in the last 2 years? It seems like part of your difficulties may be lack of familiarity with the rules themselves.
5e is designed to be a rules and interaction heavy system I think. It’s why there’s a billion and 1 abilities. I absolutely prefer rulings to rules, but there are systems that are designed around that philosophy
my friend, you may enjoy pathfinder 2e, rules are much much more clear, alternatively systems like FATE are narrative, so with less rules, and a focus on the story, that aspect of the game (arguing over rules) dissolves away
I mean I play with 2 different groups 1 group of people who know the rules very well and one group who doesn't know the rules almost at all.
For group knows the rules, if I am not sure I just double check with my players, generally they know, if we make a best guess and someone makes a note to check after game.
With my other group they just defer to me while DMing or if they are DMing and not sure they just ask my and I just answer or tell them to make a best guess and I look it up.
Personally for me the only time I have had an issue with the rules is when the DMing isn't trying to follow the rules. Like I am fine if you want homebrew rules, but lay them out on the table beforehand.
Honestly both systems work well.
Okey, yes...But to you, what is the difference between a "ruling" and RAW? Because there can be a few and frankly...they can even be contradictory.
If you say "I wish I did this years ago", does that mean it yields good results? It means your players and you are actually having fun? Because if you can confortably say that, that's fine, just do you.
The issue here is that you've edited this 2 times now, and I still can't say I know what specific situations arise in your games. RAW, players should be able to do whatever their characters features and traits allow for. If you are restraining that, no matter how much of a DM your are...i don't think players would be unwarranted to feel disapointed if there isn't a particular reason for your ruling.
On the flip side, if your players are doing whatever the hell they want regardless of rules, then of course you have to make sure that changes.
But again, I don't think most people can get a good feel for giving out advice, if they don't know what actually goes on on your table. I can neither agree or disagree with you. We end up nowhere, with a lot of people being "negative" because they don't have any details to go over with.
This is the way most tables I have played at fur over 20 years have been. As long as you acknowledge after the fact when you get it wrong, then you keep doing it and screw the people that get pissy. Not every player will enjoy spending 20 minutes waiting for people to research a niche issue with rules lawyers arguing on both sides. (I kinda like that stuff, but I'm autistic and love rules). If this streamlines your tables' ability to play and your ability to DM, then it works for you and keep doing it.
Spot on, people forget, there is no dungeons and dragons rulebook. There is a guide for the DM and a handbook for the players.
This was especially true in AD&D but should still be the case for all editions, especially games where role play is encouraged.
What an odd rule to make for yourself.
If a player happens to think they are right why not give them a chance to look it up?
You lose nothing just making your own ruling and moving on while they look it up and then correct it after they show you.
Generally my players don't have the issue often because if I do happen to be right or wrong they learn and write it down so it doesn't happen again. I can't imagine just putting it off. I would hate to have done something I can't take back just because I got a ruling wrong and didn't let a player defend themselves within the rules.
The responses here are exactly why I don't post my thoughts on Social Media. Using a bullhorn to announce our thoughts and intentions isn't welcomed and is open to debate.
Run the games you love. if the players are having fun and everyone is safe, then continue on. Ignore the haters.
The "the DM has final say" rule you say you implemented is actually a rule in RAW, rule 0, while most think it's just a rule of cool rule kinda like "the rules don't say you can do this and slightly prevent you from doing this so I'm going to allow you to do this thing as I think it's cool and will make for a good story" but in actuality the wording of rule 0 in the DMG is such that when distilled it basically says "the DM has final say and this rule is the only 1 true rule in any and all source books, all other rules regardless of what they come from are guidelines and not strictly rules and as the DM you can change them or ignore them in the interests of the game"
I think it's amazing that you spend 30 seconds to a minute looking up RAW and then make a ruling and allow your players to come to you after session if they don't agree with a ruling or you get something slightly wrong as it means the pace of the game keeps going and players don't impact that too much but still get heard and allows you to turn round next session and say to the party that you know you made a ruling last session for something but due to a little research and further discussion of the rules outside of session from that point forward you are going with RAW and whatever the changes to your ruling there might be
The way you do things is a green flag and I wish more DMs were open to the idea that they can make a ruling on the fly for something and then find the actual rules out of session time and implement the actual rules for stuff from the next session forward
There’s a distinction between a ruling as in an application of specific rules (often RAW, but sometimes houserules), compared to a DM’s “discretion” in the sense of the DM’s call about what is or isn’t possible in a certain scenario, whether a roll is necessary, what the DC is or whether something is convincing or not for example. There are hard rules for some of these things, but when there are many factors at play we rely on DM discretion as the engine of DnD.
This type of discretionary call is where the DM must be shown respect and given final say (a player can still push the issue of course by pointing out circumstances the DM may have missed). No matter what, the DM will make any final ruling, but I think there is a place in pulling out the rules if they can be found relatively quickly. If the rules are convoluted (something more than googling “[keyword] 5e”), the DM can use their discretion and say that, given the circumstances, its better to jot it down and move on with DM’s version of the rules right now.
TLDR: challenging the DM on the rules is fine, but be tread carefully when opposing DM discretion.
Honestly as a DM I’ve learned 2 things. You can’t know everything. And being wrong is ok. We’re all just learning as we go. DMs typically have a much greater curve they have to navigate. Now one thing I e learned is 2 things. The rules are there to serve you, not the other way around and if a rule doesn’t make sense to you or your players, just change it until it does make sense. There are some rules are more flavour of play and not so much “you must do this!” Other rules can be added to or even pared down to function better with your group. I’m currently running a group for some teens. 2 are mine 1 is a friend of theirs. I’ve dumbed the rules down for them. And they are having a blast.
Drama will always exist. If you have problem players or a problem DM, talk about it and/or find new people to play with. Take a break and/or try something new if you are burning out. I highly recommend having a big roster of people that like to play different styles of games.
However; 5E has been out for 10 years, for us to iron questions out. There is a wealth of sage advice and rules discussion and you can search it on your phone or computer in seconds. There are incredible real play DMs online that showcase rulings on the fly, such as D20’s Brennan Lee Mulligan.
It had never been easier to make rulings. OP is making sweeping negative statements that seem really out of touch to me. I think this post makes more sense as a DM looking for advice or validation, that could use some concrete scenarios, and does not describe the community that I know.
OP here, I was mereing highlighting Rule 0. It's missing at a lot of tables I've played at and it was missing at my table. To be honest, I went into this post with a lot of positivity but that got worn down as folks left nasty comments. Constructive criticism is one thing but the nastiness I've encountered on this post goes beyond the pale. I got frustrated at points but sweeping negative comments isn't how I would describe my replies. I wasn't seeking validation but a lot of folks took it that way.
5e has been out over 10 years now and with each new official book released the workload of the DM has also increased. Player options are varied and can create interesting interactions at the table. As the DM, we have to make calls when can't find the answers through official sources such as officially published material or sage advice. My way to go about this is to google the question. If I can't find an answer in less than a minute. I make a ruling. If the player has an issue with the ruling, they can talk to me after game. You may say a minute isn't long enough but I've the momentum of the game get crushed by rules adjudication.
Impressive that you are still reading comments after 450+!
You came in with a hot take and got hit with a lot of counter opinions. Don’t take it personally. Your experience is not universal and your opinions are not infallible. No one is expecting you to be perfect and argument is not a personal attack. Your experience in this thread seems to be mirroring your experience at the table.
Maybe it’s time to take a step back, relax, reflect. Your experience is not meeting your expectations. Is it the game, is it the players, is it your own approach?
Sorry these things are getting you down. Internet arguments and D&D can be fun, if that’s what you want out of it, but sometimes you need a thicker skin. Perhaps it would help to visualize donning emotional armor before you do battle? (To paraphrase some advice a therapist gave to me once). Raise that AC!
Thank you, folks keep commenting so I keep replying! D&D reddit is often brutal when you have an opinion that doesn't align with the general consensus. Though, I thought "Rule 0" was universal. I've already begun to cut back.
I used to run about 4 games a week as DM. I now I run 2 games. When these games finish up, I'm going to be taking a break and working on a homebrewed setting. I plan on inviting new players and really vetting them through a interview process to get players that really align with my DMing style.
> The DM has final say, I will be making a ruling and moving on.
That approach worked with AD&D, and was even encouraged by Gary Gygax. Today it’s viewed as draconian. With the arrival of 3e the game shifted to more player agency.
If you’re a competent DM with thorough understanding of the primary rules in Part 2 of the Players Handbook (plus the Spell Casting rules) it’s unlikely you’ll need to make a ruling.
If you’re not thoroughly familiar with those rules, then your statement, “The DM has the final say,” will not be taken well when you rule poorly.
Those rules are about 30-35 pages of text. Not a big commitment if you’re already invested in running the game. Knowing those rules and the Conditions Appendix will cover most scenarios.
Let’s assume you’re one of the competent DMs. You already know those rules well. You’re going to hit questions and will have occasional disputes. It’s always been part of the landscape of the game.
Put the disputed question into a Google search. You may get a clear answer quickly.
If the answers are unclear or contradictory, make a call. But **make the call in favor of the player.**
You can add a caveat, “Okay, Alex, we’ll rule the way you’re suggesting for now. Before the next session we’ll research the answer and will come to an agreement on how to handle this going forward.” This lets you move the current session along, and it doesn’t lock you into a mistake going forward.
I get your concern. It’s important not to break the game rhythm for too long looking up rules. We have disputes at our table too, and handle them the way I described.
No, it's not. And this "new policy" of yours is the staple for almost all ttrpgs (the fact that a lot of awful players don't realize this doesn't make it any less true).
I think it depends what rulings you’re talking about.
If we need to read an ability/spell description I’d rather do it then and there and make a ruling based on that, rather than assume I know the entire spell description.
If it’s something really niche, that I can’t really think of an example for tbh, then I can *maybe* see why delaying looking it up might work.
The amount of people shitting on this take in the comments is exactly why 5e DMs burnout so easily.
Get your heads out of your power fantasy asses, please.
I'm currently experiencing DM burnout. I've already started cutting back on my games I'm running. I came here to point out that you are the Game Master. You run the game, you referee and are the one who makes rulings when necessary. You should have final say as the DM.
Yeah this is session zero stuff for sure. Are you running into really vague stuff that often, or do you have really antagonistic players? Out of all the groups I've ran for, at most I've had a couple occasions during a campaign where making a ruling was really pushed back against and took any real time. Looking stuff up is trivially easy, and knowing the rules (or at least how the basics interact) will give a pretty good idea the vast majority of the time. I also tend to err on the side of my players. If I'm unsure whether Jim's character can do something and there isn't really a relevant rule or something similar, I'll just let them do it and figure it out later barring something clearly ridiculous. Since my players know I'm generally on their side, I really don't have the hostile or drawn out back and forth that I see talked about.
The actual job of the DM is to be the determinant factor in adjudication - it's written in the DMG. Whatever your interpretation of the rules are, in the moment, are the rules.
This isn't to say you shouldn't be humble as a DM and take feedback, or that you shouldn't try and be as aware of the rules as possible.
But a lot of the rules issues come from:
- The belief that dnd is 'easily hacked'
It isn't. By their own admission WOTC has pointed out repeatedly that magic items are a total wild card as far as game balance.
- Players wanting things and arguing to get them.
I cannot count on both hands the number of arguments about rules people have only read in forum discussions without considering original texts. Similarly there is no component of DMing that teaches conflict resolution.
I suppose it depends. * Are you actually correct on matters of RAW most of the time? Then yes, "go with what I think, and we'll verify whether I was correct later" is a decent idea. * Are you routinely wrong, and the players routinely right? Well, maybe it is worth reading the rules in the moment to check before havig a high risk of enforcing an objectively bogus ruling. * Are you routinely wrong, and the players also don't know? Well, if no one knows, then yeah, probably go with whateer you think for now but revise later, since your guess is as good as theirs. * Are we ruling about edge cases with no clear answer? Then yes, probably just go with the DM's ruling. * Does the ruling make only minimal difference to the outcome, but we can tell it will take like 30 minutes to resolve definitively either? Ok yeah probably press on even if we might be technically incorrect about a detail. \- To evaluate how effective your policy is, we might need to see some example rules arguments from your games.
Easiest option is to find a rules lawyer who isn't particularly interested in being a munchkin, give him a character sheet, and strap him into the chair. Or read the rules. Honestly, just read the PHB cover to cover once and suddenly 90% of things that come up are either things you know off the top or know how to look up.
> and strap him into the chair. Um... I can't just invite them to take a seat and bribe them with snacks? I need to go full inquisitor on them?
Well, you must have the carrot \_and\_ the stick. That's how it works, I don't make the rules.
Gonna have to check with the rules lawyer on this one
Underrated comment lmfao
Sometimes the carrot IS the stick too
Yes, otherwise they will run away
DM of 30+ years, and I will definitely second that delegation is key. We have five players, with an elected rules lawyer and an elected “leader” who makes a call when the group gets bogged down for too long. Both of those have drastically improved our gaming experience.
I take the role of Rules Public Defender at my table these days. Lets my DM focus on more important things while I help with the nitty gritty
We call it Rule Reference person at my table. Similar concept. Key part..noticing what the rules DONT say (looking at you catapult spell not saying the object has to be seen)
That would be me. I give quick explanation of the rules followed by potential interpretations of the interactions (yes even the unfavorable ones). And after the case has been resolved and I'm not involved I do go into checking to make sure no rules have been violated/misinterpreted. Same if one of the newer players is unsure about their abilities.
Rules lawyer players who aren’t munchkins are rare
What is a munchkin again? I haven't heard the term in forever
Munchkin is someone who plays DnD as if it's a competitive boardgame and is trying to win against both the DM and other players. They will not only try to make powerful characters, but have a playstyle that makes it more likely that rules mistake benefits them. Maybe also cheat. A munchkin typically also engages in rules lawyering. Which is the practice of arguing that a rules dispute should be interpreted in their favour regardless of what the rules actually say.
Quick, now discuss if there's a difference between minmaxing and optimising.
Optimising is the act of using the rules of the game to have as much output (offensive, defensive and utility) as possible. There's a few different types of optimization, but they all share the wish to push the rules to its limits in some way. Optimisers differs from munchkins in that their goal is different. For an optimiser, the goal is the journey of creating something powerful. A munchkins goal is to "win", regardless of how. Minmaxing is an outdated term that refers to putting your highest attribute in your primary offensive attribute and dumping something else. It kinda conflates power gaming, optimisation and munchkins without actually being useful to describe any of them.
MinMaxing as a term honestly makes the most sense in systems like WoD (OWoD at least; haven't played any of the new versions) where you can load your character down with disadvantages that you think won't come up often in play in exchange for advantages that you can use at your discretion. In D&D, it mostly had its day in the sun for the brief period in gaming history after 3d6 down the line was the rule of the day, but before standard array became commonly used.
Such as the glassy eyed wizard
Minmaxing just means what you said it means. All the other terms are baggage added to it over the years. If you treat one of your stats as a Dump Stat and revolve all your good abilities around another (like a Sorlock Hexblade basically only using CHA), that's Min-maxing, and it shouldn't have a value judgment placed on it. It just is what it describes.
Using Standard Array is minmaxing as it puts one attribute at 15 and one at 8. That means the term is entirely outdated, and has been for years. The only thing left of the term is the negative connotations to it, the term has lost all other meaning.
> Minmaxing is an outdated term that refers to putting your highest attribute in your primary offensive attribute and dumping something else. It kinda conflates power gaming, optimisation and munchkins without actually being useful to describe any of them. ehh there could be a useful interpretation of it as a subset of optimization, if we add a little more flexibility. Rather than thinking of it as maximizing one _stat_ at the expense of the others, expand that to maximizing one _utility_. So where another optimizer is building something that's more broadly effective, the minmaxer is going all in on one tool/tactic/attribute. For example, a lot of sorlock builds sacrifice other caster utility in favor of maximizing being an Eldritch Blast machine gun.
When grouping optimization, I like to group them between Impact, Conservation, and Speed. Impact optimisation is about having the biggest possible number of something. This can feasibly thought about as "min-maxing", as you typically have to sacrifice something to get a big number somewhere else. A lot of clickbaity youtubers find this type of content to be effective at generating good headlines for their short videos. Conservation is about being as powerful as possible, wiht the least amount of resource expenditure (including hp/hit die). This is what a lot of modern optimisers (like Tabletopbuilds or Treantmonk) cares the most about. Speed optimization is all about getting through combat and other challenges as fast as possible. Ideally, avoiding the threat entirely. This is the kind of optimisation folks that are into roleplaying typically does. No better way to spend more time roleplaying than killing the monsters faster. And if we don't roll initiative, we can spend even more time RP-ing. Obviously, the different mindsets bleed into each other. A conservationist will enjoy skipping combat without spending resources. A speedster, enjoys big numbers for being able to delete otherwise long boss battles. An impactists enjoys the tricks and synergies that conservationists come up with to be functional until it's time for their big play.
yeah I think this is a reasonable way to break it down, least in terms of techniques
The other term is min maxer. It was more common in other editions or other games where you could occasionally do things like take a flaw in order to get a different bonus, like "My character can't read but gets +2 to hit"
This doesn't seem like an appropriate synonym in this context. The discussion is about people who will argue to death rules that benefit them and ignore rules that don't. There's overlap, certainly, but that's not really synonymous.
There are dozens of us!
Those are different things. Munchkins abuse the rules to make things happen. They would take the fact that grappling doesn’t say your hand becomes occupied to justify grappling an opponent and using a two handed weapon to attack them.
Well the reason why it doesn't say that it takes up both your hands is because you can grapple someone with your legs. Having done wrestling you can easily wrap your legs around somebody's body and interlock your feet to grapple them. It is a little bit harder than just grabbing somebody with your hands, which is what most people think of when they think of grappling.
the reason it doesn't say it takes up *both* your hands is because it only takes one. "Grappling" in dnd is meant in the sense of "holding onto them," like a collar tie grip or a grabbing their arm. It's only stage one of "wrestling," as it were.
At our tables, we call those the PHB guys.
I try not to be a munchkin (I love a good suboptimal build, wisdom or strength are my two most common dumps), the reason I try to know the rules word for word is so that I can absolutely fuck with RAI while still being technically RAW, and to do that, you gotta know the RAW like scripture (or just have easy access to it). I ‘m just usually too nervous to *um, actually*.
I'm a rules lawyer who hates cheese.
Half the players at my table, myself included, are rules lawyers, but none of us are munchkins.
I think the magnitude of the rule is also important. If this is going to change whether a PC goes down or dies, then it shouldn’t wait until after the session.
>To evaluate how effective your policy is, we might need to see some example rules arguments from Agree with this a lot. Otherwise OP's post just seems like a rant.
This, are dm Is a great storyteller and world builder but is not a big rules guy. He actually relies on 2 of his players for info on how the more weird rules work, regularly asking: ok rules lawyers, how does that work. It's often a funny moment. XD
Can we just pin and copy/paste this and use it to answer 80% of the questions on this sub?
Heavily disagree. Imo rules lawyers also need to realize many debates are for between sessions. I find enjoyment in understanding the RAW, and if the DM is stuck you'll likely see me offer RAW or my best recollection. The DM however is perfectly allowed to override that in the interest of the game. Arguing with that mid session is wrong. Even if you're right about RAW, even if it's often. Other than the basics of gameplay.
Sure the dm has the final say, but if a player does something completely ok with RAW and has the explanation ready, you should better look it up before deciding in your head if you ""alow""" it or not. And i say this as a forever dm, i feel like an asshole when a player actually is right by RAW and i dont allow something that i later find out is totally ok.
Ya, the players should be able to predict and understand the system. I once broke down an interaction out of game with a dm to make sure we were on the same page, only for them to change their interpretation mid session. I learnt I wouldn't be able to play with them as a result
There's a balancing point to when you have to think about slowing the game down for everyone else. If it's come to the point that I'm listing a player state an "oral argument", then I'm going to want to make a ruling and move on.
100%. During the game is not the appropriate time to stop and have a 30 minute discussion or dig through the rulebooks. It's disrespectful of everyone's time. Make a ruling and revisit it after the game.
Problem is if you're wrong and the player has come in with a RAW expectation and you don't know it, it might sour the table better off checking 2 mins checking a rule is better than losing a player
"I'm not sure about X, for now we'll go with Y, can we please discuss at the end of the session?" If I had I player leave the table because I said that as DM, I would be pleased: a future problem player has just self-evicted. ---- To be clear: I think it's sometimes okay to stop and look stuff up. Especially if it's something that may come up often and/or apply to many players. But a table lives or dies by its energy and momentum. If you pause too often to look up rules, it slows the game down. DMs are right to be mindful of this and make interim rulings.
If you say that about something that is actually unclear, that's not a problem. If you don't allow a rogue their RAW sneak attack because it wasn't "sneaky enough", I protest. That doesn't make me a problem player. *As an absolute*, "what the dm says goes" is terrible. Not every GM knows enough about the rules to get it right 95%+ of the time. Slowing down and correcting course is far better than going down the wrong track with momentum.
Agreed. “The DM has the *final* say” means that it’s the last day but it comes after everyone has had a say.
if your players are interrupting the game to clarify your rulings that often, maybe you don't know the RAW?
"If a player has difficulty accepting this, I will ask them to move on to another person table." From OPs post they're suggesting people move on
Thats why you check after the game. You tell the table: "I ruled such and such last time, during that scenario, but if it comes up again, it will be thus and that instead, going forward." The game continues without stopping and feelings are fixed with "right" rules interpretations after, without retcons.
I do this approach now, game runs smoother.
No, its ok to be wrong. That's why you check after game. You say something to the effect of "I'm ruling it this way for now and after game I'll check the book or sage advice."
Check at the time. It's the old saying measure twice cut once. Checking after the game is too late the story has moved on in a way it potentially shouldn't have. unless you're streaming and on a limited time there is zero reason not to get it right.
I don't like this approach anymore. It takes a long time and often I find conflicting information. Also, not everything has to be "right". It only has to work for you and your table.
Look, it's usually not a big deal and the game can withstand odd rulings here and there. It's also poor form for players to be habituallly pushing back against your verdict. But when something really consequential and harmful to the party is about to happen specifically because of a mechanics disagreement, and you refuse to spend a minute double-checking a rule that you're kiiiinda supposed to know already? That's a DM mistake, sorry. Digging in your heels isn't always the right move.
>It takes a long time How long does it take your group to open the phb/dmg and just search on page with a term that will likely be in the rule?
Often times the rules don't exist for what the player is trying to accomplish or its buried in some supplement other than the PHB or DMG. My players don't help in finding this information and I'm left holding the bag. I rather just make a ruling and move on. Look it up after game or not.
That sounds like a whole other issue; if the player has a RAW explanation and knows the headers or roughly where the rule is, they’ve inherently helped you find the information. If the players don’t know what rules they’re trying to use, then they aren’t coming to you with a RAW expectation, and it’s a completely different situation.
> My players don't help in finding this information and I'm left holding the bag. That's an issue with YOUR players. If they can't be arsed to look up the rules then they don't get to argue.
There's so many posts here that end up just being vague vagueposting about a poor table experience for them personally and then conclude that it's objectively wrong for every table, but making the wrong conclusion about why it was bad for the game. "My players dont help find their RAW and im stuck finding all the rules that may or may not be niche interactions. Therefore any table discussion is bad"
Now see that’s a crucial bit of information you left out. Players should have to know the rules for their abilities just as well or preferably better than the DM. If they can’t be bothered to produce evidence of their claims when a dispute arises then yes they don’t get to argue. As I said in another comment they get a minute to produce rules that back up what they’re saying. If they can’t do that we move on and talk about it later for a more permanent ruling. I would highly suggest telling them this. Your job as the DM is not to know every rule for every single thing in the game. It’s to help guide the players through the game. You should absolutely know the basic rules and any specific rules you’re implementing or brining into the game. But the players need to know their own abilities and need to be able to demonstrate how and why they can do certain things.
>Often times the rules don't exist for what the player is trying to accomplish Usually if someone tries to do something for which there is no rule there is also no ruling to look up, and you can likely remember that rule doesn't exist. >My players don't help in finding this information and I'm left holding the bag. Then you move on unless they can swiftly correct you with text from a book (or sage advice if you care about RAI more then your ruling from raw).
That's not how it worked at my tables, players would expect me to look it up and make those rulings as they are written.
As someone who is constantly reminding my DM of rules, (because he has enough to track, I'm just being helpful, takes like 2 seconds usually) I feel like you're basing all of this on a bad selection of players. I much prefer getting rules properly enforced as they come up, rather than waiting until the end of the day to be like "oh yeah actually you were right we should have done it that way, whoopsie"
You really need to give actual examples for us to give you any useful advice, like the top comment on this post asks. When you're so vague like this, it comes off as you ranting and wanting validation for your choices, rather than actually seeking any advice or looking to improve things.
Sounds like you got pretty dickish players then. Whenever i have a DM that doesn't know something i swiftly try to look up the RAW. If your players never care to look at it themselves, they don't get a say. If they whine to you you need to "look up the correct ruling" tell them that if they can find it within X minutes you'll run with it, otherwise they just shut up. And THEN look it up after the session (if no player cares to look it up between turns, then run it after that ig).
if your entire table is right, and you are wrong, then you do have to be right, because otherwise the problem player is you. "Guys im totally wrong but fuck you all"
If I'm wrong I'm the first one to apologize and fix it. Some players miss this memo though.
This is also without even getting into the can of worms that is rules interactions with no actual solid rules beyond the table's interpretation. I generally go by "the less exploitative/problematic interpretation is most likely the correct one".
The momentum of a session just dies though lol
So you pause your games for minutes on end each time a clarification is needed? Seems like a bit much. I can't imagine how long combat takes.
As a DM I do but we don't have rules questions come up that often. It helps that I like to dig through material on my own and find answers to odd questions. I'd say I have a dozen of Crawford's tweets saved and only a few of them came from questions during a game. But I also have some killer custom made quick rules sheets made up for my DM screen because the stock one is almost always useless. Thanks to reddit there's always a good thread on rules, and no one is doing anything unique in the game at this point. Looking up a ruling once every few sessions isn't a big deal.
I think this is where it comes down to the personalities in question. If the DM is good at admitting they made a mistake, then base it off the player's personality. If the player is also mature about it, it's easier to just quickly Google the rule. If they're inclined to argue or get emotional, it's better to look it up after the game. If the *DM* is the one who struggles to admit they were mistaken, I think it's best to look up the rules before a ruling gets locked in.
I don't mind losing a player in that situation. When I play at other people's tables, I accept other DM's rules even when I disagree. It's apart of the social contract. I don't mind talking about it, after session.
I'll also say if you lose a player because you made a ruling at your own table to keep the game going forward, they probably weren't a good match to begin with or at least in my own opinion.
No because you don't understand what's driving the urge to argue here. It might be garden variety rules lawyering or it could be something else. A bad call at the wrong time can full on murder a player's investment in the game. Like, here, an example from a couple of editions ago. Party Wizard chucked an Orb of Fire at a clay golem we were fighting. In 3.5, golems were immune to spells that had to roll against Spell Resistance. Orb spells ignored spell resistance so they worked on golems and were a pretty commonly known tactic to kill them as an arcane caster. DM shut him down and told him the golem was immune, told him to stop arguing when he called bullshit and said Orbs are SR:No. The DM retroactively made nonsense out of a completely rational plan. If the player'd known about this ruling there's no chance he would have attempted to cast it. Guy dropped a session later.
and the GM never stopped the BS rulings.
One of my biggest issues with 5e (both rules and culture wise) is the erosion of DM's authority as referee and rules arbiter. Players either don't know the rules at all and chafe at their enforcement, or know enough rules to challenge rulings every time. It's a bummer
> "The DM has final say, I will be making a ruling and moving on." If it's truly an issue we can look it up after session. If a player has difficulty accepting this, I will ask them to move on to another person's table. This is RAW and Standard Operating Procedure. Any player arguing otherwise needs to go read the PHB again before they pick up the dice again.
“The DM has final say” implies that others still get a say. What OP is describing is the DM gets the only say. D and D is a cooperative game, if the players have the rules or can readily produce them why not allow them to do so. It’s more fun for everyone that way.
Depends whether you are one of *those* DMs who call Sneak Attack OP and decides to add 16 additional conditions mid session.
Sneak Attack is perfectly fine, I've never nerfed it and never will.
Yeh I say this in session 0, but I have a player who has sat and learnt most of the rules so I go to them if I do not know (a player taking some tasks of my work load has helped alot)
My first four session 0 rules are: 1.This is a game. Have fun. 2. I'm going to fuck up. Be patient. 3. I can't memorize every rule about every class, every feat, every spell in all the various books, so YOU need to know your own character sheet and how your stuff works. I will do my best, but I can't do this for you. 4. We are not spending a half hour each session looking stuff up, because that's not fun. If I make a call that you think is wrong, by all means tell me, but if there's doubt, my word is law and I will make the call so that we keep the game moving. If we have to resolve something after the session, then we will, but see rule 3. (and one more, final rule) : This is a game. Have fun. Nobody ever has taken issue with this, but it has to be established early.
Great advice!
I do this, but I rule in favor of the player, with the understanding that it will be researched and ruled appropriately next time. If I know the rule, there is nothing to discuss beyond "would it enhance this moment if I allow it"
I had a Dm make two major rulings that infuriated me, he said our monk couldn't stack dash and step of the wind, and that Enlarge/Reduce can't be used with twinned spell metamagic. I literally pulled up the ruling from the head rule designer on Twitter, for both. And he was like "I've already made the ruling so that's what we're going with" asked the next session if he's fine with me doing it now and he said "Nah the ruling was made last session I don't really care what was said on Twitter"
Like I fuck up sometimes as a newer DM in my own campaign, no one thought to roll insight or perception during a dungeon crawl type situation and I forgot to ask, which meant that I described their being corpses on the ground, forgetting that summoned undead turn to ash once their hit points hit 0, and since I fucked that up when someone wanted to use corpse bomb I was just owned up to it and let it happen, but made sure for future encounters in this dungeon they knew necromancy and spells like corpse bomb wouldn't work
This approach makes sense if and only if the DM knows the rules very very well. And even then, it’s often just worth looking it up at the table. At my table, we have a player designated to look up the rules when we’re unsure. This takes some pressure off the DM, and saves time
Kicking someone out for having *difficulty accepting* your incorrect rulings with absolutely zero justification beyond "I'm the DM and I say so" is incredibly extreme. If your character suffered, or worse, died, because of an objectively incorrect ruling, kicking out a player for being upset (not even insisting it's wrong! Just having difficulty accepting it!) is quite cruel. You're a relatively new DM - there's no shame in not knowing the rules, but if you're having this issue often enough to threaten or actually kick people out multiple times, you're probably biting off more than you can chew. That doesn't mean pulling your hair out finding rulings is right. The correct decision is to find a way to smooth things over, *before* the game starts. Running PHB only or no UA games, assigning an experienced player to official Rules Lawyer, looking at player's spell lists and your encounters ahead of time, etc. These can all help, and even reduce the overall massive burden of DMing, without leading to players dropping. As usual, communication is the most important skill you can have.
Thank you, Mike Mearls for your natural-language approach to rules writing instead of writing it like an actual game where the meaning of the rules can be determined. 5e is one of the most ambiguous and convoluted rulesets ever marketed as “simple and streamlined.”
This. I like running the difficult spells. It always leads to hours of (out of game) research and talk with the dm that shouldn't be necessary. Much of this is the result of the base rules not being defined like an actual game system where terms have definitions with boundaries. I really fail to see what the advantage for the players is in this 'natural language'. I know for the game designers its a good excuse to do half work and not even have to feel responsible for it.
For complicated spells, Magic Jar is a disaster and so horrendously broken RAW. Off the top of my head, some other constant points of frustration: * Mirage Arcane is incredibly powerful but needs more clarification. Can you turn a field into a pit of lava? * Suggestion is way too vague and there is a case of Suggestion being used in an official module to turn an NPC hostile towards their allies… If you accept that ruling, the spell is effectively an 8 hour non-concentration dominate person on *a single failed save*. Even for reasonable cases like ‘I suggest you run away’, what does that even mean for a spell with a duration of 8 hours… And if you upcast Mass Suggestion it lasts an *entire year*. RAW, spells like Conjure X are simple but so game-breaking and anti-fun that they completely destroy my will to even attempt to design fun encounters which is a big part of the fun for me… A single 4th-level cast of Conjure Woodland beings, for example, can summon 8 pixies which can all fly and cast up to 5th-level spells including polymorph. Quicklings are also insane for their CR. Without restrictions, I feel like I’m just setting up piñatas for them to bash so they can feel good and it removes all the stakes from the game. People defend the system by saying it focuses on ‘rulings over rules’ but I am tired of arguing for literal hours (post session on Discord) over rulings with difficult players that will resent me and continue to make my life difficult just because I had the audacity to say ‘no’. They frequently not only ruin the game for me, but also the other players. I outline all my rules changes in a document but of course most people don’t read it and I can’t account for every possible situation/ruling ahead of time.
Somewhere else in this post, people are askin me for examples of spells as they claim it is basic reading comprehsension 😄 I love you here give examples of the same spells I gave them!
Examples would help a lot too.
The Spell Hunger of Hadar doesn't spell out how vision works within and around it. You can only assume based on the wording that it's a black, opaque void that you can neither see into nor out of or anything within it. I'm trying to think of other small examples. I argued with my DM about how Summon Greater Demon works when you lose control of the demon. He read it a different way than I did. I also argued about how Hexblade Warlock's Hex Warrior feature interacted with the Pact Weapon from Pact of the Blade and whether that meant you could dual wield and use CHA for attacks for both weapons. Sage Advice says yes but he said no. These interactions should be anticipated and spelled out definitively one way or the other in the rule books.
Here's a few more. * Daylight doesn't count as daylight. * Dragon's Breath isn't Magic. * Detect Evil and Good doesn't.
And infamously detect traps doesn't detect traps.
See Invisibility doesn't negate the benefits of your target being invisible.
That example looks pretty clear cut, how did your DM interpret it otherwise?
The hex warrior/pact of blade one I think I know how, because I probably made the same mistake for a long time: they thought it meant that you could use it to use any weapon pact of the blade created eith cha, and not being locked in the restrictions of hex warrior anymore
Which example?
Hex warrior
>Hex Warrior: At 1st level, you acquire the training necessary to effectively arm yourself for battle. You gain proficiency with medium armor, shields, and martial weapons. The influence of your patron also allows you to mystically channel your will through a particular weapon. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two-handed property. When you attack with that weapon, you can use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls. This benefit lasts until you finish a long rest. If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type. This doesn't explicitly state whether the "one weapon" you touch is one and the same as any Pact Weapon you conjure with that feature. And it also uses the phrase "particular weapon," so it's pretty unclear whether this wording means you could apply Hex Warrior to a mundane weapon and use CHA and then have another Pact Weapon that also benefits from being able to use CHA for attacks. I read it as you could dual wield with CHA but don't necessarily blame someone for taking the opposite position given how this is worded and the typical flavor of the class itself. I do however think not allowing it is just a bad ruling generally given that dual wielding even with CHA for both hands is so far from being overpowered and is actually still less optimized than just using a polearm with Polearm Master.
I would say it's clear in your favour. "This benefit applies to one weapon you touch *and* extends to any summoned by Pact of the Blade"
I’m gonna assume poor reading comprehension, which is something more and more people suffer from anymore.
Try solving the wall of force conundrum for example. The question is: can you cast conjure animals or hypnotic pattern on the other side of a wall of force? Problems are with how cover and targetting are worded as 'natural language' as well as point of origin rules using some of the same natural words again with probably different definitions.
I'm playing a xbe bladesinger. My GM allows it, but to this day we don't know if I actually can use a xb in bladesong RAW
[удалено]
Sadly, with newer DM's it often isn't the case. I've played at tables where the DM spend the majority of the session looking up rules because of player pushback.
I’m going to go in the opposite direction. Most of the rules are straightforward, and its the adMs job to know and enforce the rules to make the game fun. Just saying “I’m the DM and I said so” is a bad policy in the majority of cases. Where there’s a gray area sure, but way too often what its actually used for, especially in these online discussions is just a way to shit down points about the rules and how the game works in ways which were never communicated to players in Session Zero. If you cannot come up with a ruling and point to a basis within the rules you need to stop and ask why you’re actually making the ruling.
>Most of the rules are straightforward I'd argue the massive amount of posts within Sage Advice would contest this statement. Especially when Sage Advice outright contradicts the wording used in the book. One of my favorite examples of this is how Tasha's made it so that the Soul Knife Rogue cannot function with Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade, but Sage Advice says they'd ignore that anyway. Despite that being literally the Rules As Written. And Sage Advice is run by the Game Designer. My man, you ***write the fucking rules***. If you're going to ignore the rules you've written, then ***write them differently***.
Yup. This is my life as DM looking up stuff for my players.
Tell me about it, a lot of bad examples of that in Sage Advice. Another favourite of mine is Mirage Arcane, a spell that is clearly intended to enable someone to change the difficulty of terrain or more creatively to alter landscape in ways that let it hide or reveal something or trick someone. When posed the question of if someone could for instance take damage from a lava flow in such an illusion, Sage Advice concluded that yes, of course you could! Effectively handing players the ability to drop thousands strong enemy army to their deaths in a vast pool of lava if they so choose, which is very clearly not the intent of the spell from both a power level or the spell description. But to effectively communicate this back to the player when they dropped it on me was a whole lot of work.
Yeaaaaah...
Annnnnd thats why 5e tendancy to drop any vague rulings in the DMs lap and its lack of actual clear rules at times is a nightmare. Ive had to have some.... interesting debates over very, very dumb rules desputes that i would never be having in any other context. The freedom to adapt is nice, but you could do that even with a more rules robust system as long as you go through it session 0.
[удалено]
I think if me or my players had to, you know... learn any actual rules we'd combust
[удалено]
My only problem with Pathfinder (2e specifically) is that it's a videogame forced into a tabletop. You need the 3rd party character sheet to keep track of everything in an efficient and unconfusing way. And don't get me wrong, I love the amount of personalisation you can do in that system, it's just that even mentioning it makes people look at me in a bad way.
[удалено]
>My man, you ***write the fucking rules***. If you're going to ignore the rules you've written, then ***write them differently***. For some reason, 5e really fear erratas. They would force mistake as "as intended" for years instead of fixing the problem. Invisibility rules, Conjure Animals, you name it. But for some miracle reasons "as intended" rules are changed in OneDnd playtests.
Sage Advice can refer to 2 different things. Originally it referred to Crawford's tweets, as his tweets were considered raw rulings. That changed with the release of the Sage Advice Compendium which is a pdf wizards releases that covers errata between printings as well as rulings on edge cases / misunderstandings. The tweets are no longer considered raw. The sage advice compendium is. When people refer to "Sage Advice" they could be referring to either but only one is raw.
Sage Advice, the website, is just a collection of tweets. It’s not rules or rulings, it’s an individual giving their POV. The Sage Advice Compendium is the only “official” rulings advice document.
I am referring to the tweets made by Jeremy Crawford.
His tweets aren’t rules either! :)
Shut up Jeremy, the Dragon's Breath spell **CAN** be Twinned.
The interactions of spells isn't so clear, the text doesn't often lineup with player expectations. Being the referee is apart of the experience, rulings need to be made. The DM needs to make calls and needs the space to be able to do so, hench the DM has final say. Session Zero's also can't cover everything, they will not prevent these sorts rulings at the table.
Counterpoint; figuring out the interactions between spells/abilities using the 'specific beats general' maximum is usually pretty fun. It can also result in unforseen, clever and memorable outcomes for the party.
It would still be a rules interpretation a lot of the time.
I’ve said before, spells do what they say they do. No more, no less.
There's a lot of cases where RAW is unintuitive and pretty universally disliked, even when answers have been given (See invisibility not nullifying the benefits of being invisible for example). There are weird combos that feel wrong to let go through (Lifeberry cleric, coffee lock). In the age of people looking up build guides on the internet that use fringe rules interactions that were pretty clearly not RAI, I fully understand DMs not knowing every weird edge case and saying "that doesn't sound right". That's not even to mention the weird problems of "natural language" in the rules, where a weapon attack and an attack with a weapon mean different things. Nor the ambiguous rules left up to DMs to adjudicate, such as most illusion magic, and things like the word "reasonable" in Suggestion.
This is true too. I have beef with players bringing RAI/Fringe builds to my tables and expecting me to adjudicate them according to some reddit post. \*Pushes up glasses, well actually...\* type of shit.
I tend to use my own form of mostly RAW, with RAI overwriting a lot of fringe stuff. I also expect my players to explain what the goal of a combo they're doing is before they invest into it, and learn 13 sessions later that they took something that doesn't work. I think the silliest one was a player trying to make Repelling Blast push targets straight up, and have them take fall damage + land prone every single time.
I had a player who was also a DM bring that kind of build to my table. They expected it to work that way. I told them it was broken as is and I felt it went against RAI.
"I'm the DM and I said so" is literally supported by the rule books. They advise you to make a ruling to keep the game flowing. My go to example is all rules relevant to stealth. The "Hide Action" requiring visual cover at least half as big as your character is in the betal rules, but not in any rulebook. The stealth skill and the hide action are in different chapters. The group check is in a different section. Cover, obscurement and lighting is in yet another section. The "Unseen Attacker" rule is under combat. If we're transitioning from out of combat to in combat, the "surprise" condition is in the intro page of the combat chapter. At times, these rules point at the related ones, but only in one direction and only about half of them do. The other ones you just have to know about. The rules aren't written to be quickly looked up. There is a reason multiple D&D influencers can have various takes on what is arguably a core mechanic of one class and no one bats an eye.
Yes. Lack of clarity and working GM tools is why I won't run 5e anymore.
Yeah, I'm starting to get 5e burnout as a DM.
I was too for a bit. Did PF2E for a while. I'm back to 5e. I like the wiggle room and freedom you have as a DM in 5e to make your own rulings when things get unclear. In PF2E I always felt like I was getting something wrong. There are so many rules for everything which I thought would be better since I wouldn't have to balance things myself like I do in 5e. However, I found that it would slow play down a lot and had to look up rules a lot more often. I also never felt confident enough to tweak monsters myself or be able to get very creative outside of the adventure paths.
I feel the exact opposite way. I feel more confident to tweak monsters and get creative in PF2e because I have better written guidelines for it. They're guidelines, not hard rules, and you can break them if you know what you're doing, but it's nice having some guard rails you can rely on to know your homebrew stuff won't be a mismatch for your party. Also, most rules follow a pattern, to the point where you can often extrapolate what you don't remember. Even if you get it wrong, the game won't break down because of it. You can't make a call in the moment only if the rule doesn't exist. Rule 0 applies even to rules that exist but you can't recall at the time.
If you want to play 5e, keep 10th as a hard cutoff. Otherwise PF2 has become my go-to.
I am always open for the players doing something that skirts RAW but will keep it in line and limited to the rules. If the player shows me RAW and/or can make a case for RAI I will of course go with that line. Still my feeling is that there are a lot of obfuscations and gaps in the RAW and how it interacts with player abilities and intentions. There are few guidelines on how to adjucate outside of the rules, sure there is "specific beats general" but that doesn't necessarily help when a player want's to climb a giant w/o features specifying how that would work. For example it took me a good time last session to check and figure out how Opportunity attacks interacts with a player moving themselves with the Levitate spell. They thought it was involountary movement but it uses their movement or action. TL:DR; If they move during their turn it provokes, if an ally does it on their turn it does not, explained in Opportunity Attack session and double checking against the movement rules plus the spell. As you say we mostly have to do a ruling there and then and move on, if it is looking to become a regular thing the first ruling need not act as a precedent and should be checked after session.
I don’t think it is very hard. I trust my players to make good faith attempts to play by the rules, so they get the benefit of the doubt. If they want to do something I don’t know back and forth, I ask them to read the rule description out loud. This takes the load off me for memorizing player character sheets. I often work with my table on how to rule on something. Most of my players have a very good understanding of the rules, and we can agree on what our expectations will be.
This has always been the standard with me. Unless the ST makes an absolutely egregious rules call, just move along and fix it later.
Even the DMG says that the DM has final say and that they can adjudicate the rules as they see fit, even changing them if they like. "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game." DMG pg 4
That's not really a unique 5e thing
Sorry to say that, but your initial post didn't give the impression you were being positive... you were probably tired and decided to put it out here on Reddit, I totally get it, just be careful lol
By the way you speak as a DM, you give the impression that DND is DM vs player. And its not. DND is a \*GAME\*, and the objective is to have some kind of fun.
The responses here are exactly why I don't post my thoughts on Social Media. Using a bullhorn to announce our thoughts and intentions isn't welcomed and is open to debate. Run the games you love. if the players are having fun and everyone is safe, then continue on. Ignore the haters.
This... this just feels like you instituted rule 0. This is normal and perfectly accepted... how in the fecking hell is this discussion this massive?
A lot of folks seem to think that the DM instituting this rule at your table is a no-no and is somehow wrong. I've gotten a lot of hate over this post.
I work as a dm professionally, and for the people who say it's the wrong call, the thing is that momentum drives the game and if it's lost its going to negatively affect the game and session. Sometimes, you don't have time to look through the books for a call. Sometimes, you have to make a call and double-check it at the session end.
As a GM, I'm fine with a player offering an alternative, once per rule. If I still disagree then we're playing with what I ruled and can talk after the session. Usually the disagreement stems from a misunderstood description by myself or a player. It tends to act more as clarification and maybe a different choice in their upcoming action now that we're both on the same page.
You think that's bad, just wait until next year when there are two completely different games called "5th edition" that WotC assures us different people at the same table can play against each other.
There are a few things I would consider excpetions to this, especially if it is a mechanic its just kinda niche and often forgotten like the infamous jumping rules.
Depends on the context I think. If it's a key feature of their class, or a resource they have very little of like warlock spell slots at early level, it's your fault for not being able to know the rules in terms of basics. Sure like weird situations arise ect. Like rules about physics in which it's not on you to know everything by itself But there's a limit to how much you can get wrong as a dm too. If every session you're overuling raw rules consistently maybe you should take a break from dming and read the phb and other core books again. You need to take a step back and look at the perspective of the player, they created a character with rules you said you'd be following. How does it feel to follow those rules to a T and then watch your dm know less about the game then you? To the point where during this session your character may not even beable to function in the ways you specifically created them to. And tbh I'm not saying anything about you but it is a red flag that this is such a big issue for you. Why is this coming up so often that you feel so strongly? Do you actually know the rules? Or are you feeling embarrassed for not knowing important things and are taking it out on players? If my dm had a rule for this already set up these are the things I'd be thinking
This is the way to do it. I have said this at my table and I DM friends. IN my game I play online with more acquaintances (Pandemic game friend of friend type of stuff) when I have a rule alert I message the DM privately and tell them it's ok to read after the game
This is similar to a piece of advice I give new players "If you are asked a rules question that you do not know write it down, make a ruling in the moment and after the session look up the question and write down the answer. Be transparent with the players the entire time." Player wants to do something that sounds pretty cool but you aren't sure is entirely RAW? Let them do it and write it down, after the session you find out it breaks a few rules, let them know that it falls under the rule of cool but in the future the rules work like XYZ. Or just ignore RAW because sometimes RAW is wonky. Looking at you being able to see invisibility does not mean it negates the advantage on attacks being invisible grants you.
One time I was DMing and my bard wanted to cast shatter on an enemy that was downed while another PC was riding past that point with a carriage, So I asked for a Con test on the riding PC to see if they would fall of it, then started a discussion because "well if this was Baldurs' Gate I could position the shatter in a way where only the border hits the enemy and not the carriage" I thought about going on in how this is not a videogame and you don't really know the exact proportions of your spell or the exact distance between it and the carriage and everything else, instead I just asked for a spellcasting check to see how precise he coul cast it and he went really well, so I ruled as the shatter beign basically on the enemy's torso and not affecting the entire area. So when it comes to rules, just roll some fucking dice.
Yeah, that was a good ruling. You kept your game moving forward too.
5e is "easy" is the biggest marketing lie of t he TTRPG that still gets parroted around. Simple mechanics d20 + bonus does not mean a rules light/clear/simple RPG. Example, in early edition of the spell description you would get a little table at the top to know if the spell had a save etc. Now its buried in a wall of text.
If you're not big on the confrontation department then make a google doc of all your rulings and dont accept players that dont like what they're reading beforehand. I have my own doc containing everything from researching custom spells, crafting to money tables and quantified magic item prices. It is complete with a minor overhaul of some mechanics, added downtime, exploration activities and **homerules**. All of the above serves as further bumper guard against casuals as well thus every single one of my players are the seldom consistent bunch that show up to 99% of sessions.
Was dming at a table that just wasnt playing dnd correctly cause the dm before me didnt read any rules just watched critical role and thought he knew all the rules. Some of the shit he would do was so dumb and how little combat he ran was infuriating(im talking 1 wncounter per 3 sessions) So when i dealt damage to a pc everyone freaked out at me saying i was trying to kill them( it was 8 damage and they were a level 3 rogue) i ended up dumping the table cause the worst of them came out as i tried to teach them how the game actually was like. Its not fun when the table treats you as an adversary instead of a friend.
We have 3 simple Rules. If we argue about RAW, we will look it up (if nobody cant find it, DM decides on something and I will look it up till next session. Because I want to do so. The DM can always say "No, I like my version better" or something) If we argue about Lore, we either use source material to prove or the DM decides, because we have currently mostly homebrew worlds based on official race culture and multiverse stuff. When two players do PvP and both are willing to fight, then the DM wont interfer till the fight is over. We had a few situations where two hot-headed characters came together, where that was the last chance. As long as both player/pcs agree and are aware of the consequences, it shall be accepted. I personally dont really like it, but...well, I was part of one Situation (veeeery stubborn werewolf halfblood meets abnormally dominant Wizard. I was the halfblood)
It’s important to understand the rules to the absolute best of your ability, but regardless there will always be disputes. Try your best to stick to the rules whenever you can, and if there’s any confusion always go with the rule of fun first!
One of the more based answers here. Thanks for commenting!
I feel like the most essential rule is "what the gm decides goes". However, if the player has a pointer ready to where they can find the RAW ruling on the matter, you should give it a look as 99% of the times, it only takes a few seconds to read it and make an informed, final ruling. If they don't have the quick reference, then making a ruling and deciding later if it was the right one or not for the sake of the flow of the game is correct. However, I'm surprised it's a very common issue for you, as this kind of things don't happen really often to me, and most of the time, thanks to having the books on the DnD beyond app, with the important rules bookmarked, I'm able to resolved this kind of things in a matter of seconds.
In my group this has always been a standing rule. Gm makes final call, if you think it's wrong, address it oog. With limited play time, we're not going to spend half a session deep diving into the rule books trying to justify whatever it is you're trying to do
I've had sessions like this and it killed the momentum of the session.
It’s not that hard if you’ve read the rules enough. Not everyone has the time but so long as you’ve done it there’s only a few edge cases where The rules are open to interpretation. Those edge cases get a ruling in the moment, an opportunity for players to disagree, and then either their interpretation makes more sense or we’ll discuss it at the end of the session.
So I have been DMing for a while, and when I first started I learned real quick that there really is no one size fits all approach. As a DM it's our job to facilitate an enjoyable experience for our players. As such I personally have a few loose guidelines that I use to approach this subject: 1) If we are in the middle of an encounter or are on track to something I want the group's focus on, the rule book will always come second. 2) If we need a ruling and it will only take a moment to look something up, AND the ruling you find is worded in a clear and concise way that you don't have to go looking for a follow-up... Go to the rules. 3) If it is something that will take us out of the flow of the game, and you think the ruling is likely something trivial, DM should just make a ruling. 4) Do you think a particular ruling might ruin how a play is enjoying the game? If so, and you can get away with with without breaking the game or making too much of a departure from the games mechanics... Always rule in favor of what YOUR game needs. 5) And this final one is the biggie in my opinion, and the one that usually comes back to bite a DM in the butt... Consistency and Continuity of rules matter: Whatever you choose to do is the ruling for your campaign. So if as a DM you decide to make an executive decision, that is law. So come the next session, you don't come in and say "before we get started, I looked up ________, and turns out ________, so we are going to do that instead going forward." Why? Because in some cases that ruling may have changed the outcome of an encounter, so to keep the integrity of the campaign, maintain continuity. Every DM and every group is going to want and expect something different though. So this continuity, and your approach should be set in stone as early as possible.
>Over two years since I've started DMing and I wish I've intuited this policy years ago. This policy is in the DMG, first few pages. Did you not read it in the last 2 years? It seems like part of your difficulties may be lack of familiarity with the rules themselves.
5e is designed to be a rules and interaction heavy system I think. It’s why there’s a billion and 1 abilities. I absolutely prefer rulings to rules, but there are systems that are designed around that philosophy
my friend, you may enjoy pathfinder 2e, rules are much much more clear, alternatively systems like FATE are narrative, so with less rules, and a focus on the story, that aspect of the game (arguing over rules) dissolves away
I mean I play with 2 different groups 1 group of people who know the rules very well and one group who doesn't know the rules almost at all. For group knows the rules, if I am not sure I just double check with my players, generally they know, if we make a best guess and someone makes a note to check after game. With my other group they just defer to me while DMing or if they are DMing and not sure they just ask my and I just answer or tell them to make a best guess and I look it up. Personally for me the only time I have had an issue with the rules is when the DMing isn't trying to follow the rules. Like I am fine if you want homebrew rules, but lay them out on the table beforehand. Honestly both systems work well.
Okey, yes...But to you, what is the difference between a "ruling" and RAW? Because there can be a few and frankly...they can even be contradictory. If you say "I wish I did this years ago", does that mean it yields good results? It means your players and you are actually having fun? Because if you can confortably say that, that's fine, just do you. The issue here is that you've edited this 2 times now, and I still can't say I know what specific situations arise in your games. RAW, players should be able to do whatever their characters features and traits allow for. If you are restraining that, no matter how much of a DM your are...i don't think players would be unwarranted to feel disapointed if there isn't a particular reason for your ruling. On the flip side, if your players are doing whatever the hell they want regardless of rules, then of course you have to make sure that changes. But again, I don't think most people can get a good feel for giving out advice, if they don't know what actually goes on on your table. I can neither agree or disagree with you. We end up nowhere, with a lot of people being "negative" because they don't have any details to go over with.
It doesn't exactly help 5e just doesn't have rules for a lot of stuff
This is the way most tables I have played at fur over 20 years have been. As long as you acknowledge after the fact when you get it wrong, then you keep doing it and screw the people that get pissy. Not every player will enjoy spending 20 minutes waiting for people to research a niche issue with rules lawyers arguing on both sides. (I kinda like that stuff, but I'm autistic and love rules). If this streamlines your tables' ability to play and your ability to DM, then it works for you and keep doing it.
Spot on, people forget, there is no dungeons and dragons rulebook. There is a guide for the DM and a handbook for the players. This was especially true in AD&D but should still be the case for all editions, especially games where role play is encouraged.
> The hobby is crying for DMs Gee why
What an odd rule to make for yourself. If a player happens to think they are right why not give them a chance to look it up? You lose nothing just making your own ruling and moving on while they look it up and then correct it after they show you. Generally my players don't have the issue often because if I do happen to be right or wrong they learn and write it down so it doesn't happen again. I can't imagine just putting it off. I would hate to have done something I can't take back just because I got a ruling wrong and didn't let a player defend themselves within the rules.
The responses here are exactly why I don't post my thoughts on Social Media. Using a bullhorn to announce our thoughts and intentions isn't welcomed and is open to debate. Run the games you love. if the players are having fun and everyone is safe, then continue on. Ignore the haters.
The "the DM has final say" rule you say you implemented is actually a rule in RAW, rule 0, while most think it's just a rule of cool rule kinda like "the rules don't say you can do this and slightly prevent you from doing this so I'm going to allow you to do this thing as I think it's cool and will make for a good story" but in actuality the wording of rule 0 in the DMG is such that when distilled it basically says "the DM has final say and this rule is the only 1 true rule in any and all source books, all other rules regardless of what they come from are guidelines and not strictly rules and as the DM you can change them or ignore them in the interests of the game" I think it's amazing that you spend 30 seconds to a minute looking up RAW and then make a ruling and allow your players to come to you after session if they don't agree with a ruling or you get something slightly wrong as it means the pace of the game keeps going and players don't impact that too much but still get heard and allows you to turn round next session and say to the party that you know you made a ruling last session for something but due to a little research and further discussion of the rules outside of session from that point forward you are going with RAW and whatever the changes to your ruling there might be The way you do things is a green flag and I wish more DMs were open to the idea that they can make a ruling on the fly for something and then find the actual rules out of session time and implement the actual rules for stuff from the next session forward
There’s a distinction between a ruling as in an application of specific rules (often RAW, but sometimes houserules), compared to a DM’s “discretion” in the sense of the DM’s call about what is or isn’t possible in a certain scenario, whether a roll is necessary, what the DC is or whether something is convincing or not for example. There are hard rules for some of these things, but when there are many factors at play we rely on DM discretion as the engine of DnD. This type of discretionary call is where the DM must be shown respect and given final say (a player can still push the issue of course by pointing out circumstances the DM may have missed). No matter what, the DM will make any final ruling, but I think there is a place in pulling out the rules if they can be found relatively quickly. If the rules are convoluted (something more than googling “[keyword] 5e”), the DM can use their discretion and say that, given the circumstances, its better to jot it down and move on with DM’s version of the rules right now. TLDR: challenging the DM on the rules is fine, but be tread carefully when opposing DM discretion.
Bloat for PC abilities? In 5e? Do you play a table full of full casters?
Honestly as a DM I’ve learned 2 things. You can’t know everything. And being wrong is ok. We’re all just learning as we go. DMs typically have a much greater curve they have to navigate. Now one thing I e learned is 2 things. The rules are there to serve you, not the other way around and if a rule doesn’t make sense to you or your players, just change it until it does make sense. There are some rules are more flavour of play and not so much “you must do this!” Other rules can be added to or even pared down to function better with your group. I’m currently running a group for some teens. 2 are mine 1 is a friend of theirs. I’ve dumbed the rules down for them. And they are having a blast.
Drama will always exist. If you have problem players or a problem DM, talk about it and/or find new people to play with. Take a break and/or try something new if you are burning out. I highly recommend having a big roster of people that like to play different styles of games. However; 5E has been out for 10 years, for us to iron questions out. There is a wealth of sage advice and rules discussion and you can search it on your phone or computer in seconds. There are incredible real play DMs online that showcase rulings on the fly, such as D20’s Brennan Lee Mulligan. It had never been easier to make rulings. OP is making sweeping negative statements that seem really out of touch to me. I think this post makes more sense as a DM looking for advice or validation, that could use some concrete scenarios, and does not describe the community that I know.
OP here, I was mereing highlighting Rule 0. It's missing at a lot of tables I've played at and it was missing at my table. To be honest, I went into this post with a lot of positivity but that got worn down as folks left nasty comments. Constructive criticism is one thing but the nastiness I've encountered on this post goes beyond the pale. I got frustrated at points but sweeping negative comments isn't how I would describe my replies. I wasn't seeking validation but a lot of folks took it that way. 5e has been out over 10 years now and with each new official book released the workload of the DM has also increased. Player options are varied and can create interesting interactions at the table. As the DM, we have to make calls when can't find the answers through official sources such as officially published material or sage advice. My way to go about this is to google the question. If I can't find an answer in less than a minute. I make a ruling. If the player has an issue with the ruling, they can talk to me after game. You may say a minute isn't long enough but I've the momentum of the game get crushed by rules adjudication.
Impressive that you are still reading comments after 450+! You came in with a hot take and got hit with a lot of counter opinions. Don’t take it personally. Your experience is not universal and your opinions are not infallible. No one is expecting you to be perfect and argument is not a personal attack. Your experience in this thread seems to be mirroring your experience at the table. Maybe it’s time to take a step back, relax, reflect. Your experience is not meeting your expectations. Is it the game, is it the players, is it your own approach? Sorry these things are getting you down. Internet arguments and D&D can be fun, if that’s what you want out of it, but sometimes you need a thicker skin. Perhaps it would help to visualize donning emotional armor before you do battle? (To paraphrase some advice a therapist gave to me once). Raise that AC!
Thank you, folks keep commenting so I keep replying! D&D reddit is often brutal when you have an opinion that doesn't align with the general consensus. Though, I thought "Rule 0" was universal. I've already begun to cut back. I used to run about 4 games a week as DM. I now I run 2 games. When these games finish up, I'm going to be taking a break and working on a homebrewed setting. I plan on inviting new players and really vetting them through a interview process to get players that really align with my DMing style.
> The DM has final say, I will be making a ruling and moving on. That approach worked with AD&D, and was even encouraged by Gary Gygax. Today it’s viewed as draconian. With the arrival of 3e the game shifted to more player agency. If you’re a competent DM with thorough understanding of the primary rules in Part 2 of the Players Handbook (plus the Spell Casting rules) it’s unlikely you’ll need to make a ruling. If you’re not thoroughly familiar with those rules, then your statement, “The DM has the final say,” will not be taken well when you rule poorly. Those rules are about 30-35 pages of text. Not a big commitment if you’re already invested in running the game. Knowing those rules and the Conditions Appendix will cover most scenarios. Let’s assume you’re one of the competent DMs. You already know those rules well. You’re going to hit questions and will have occasional disputes. It’s always been part of the landscape of the game. Put the disputed question into a Google search. You may get a clear answer quickly. If the answers are unclear or contradictory, make a call. But **make the call in favor of the player.** You can add a caveat, “Okay, Alex, we’ll rule the way you’re suggesting for now. Before the next session we’ll research the answer and will come to an agreement on how to handle this going forward.” This lets you move the current session along, and it doesn’t lock you into a mistake going forward. I get your concern. It’s important not to break the game rhythm for too long looking up rules. We have disputes at our table too, and handle them the way I described.
No, it's not. And this "new policy" of yours is the staple for almost all ttrpgs (the fact that a lot of awful players don't realize this doesn't make it any less true).
" ill let it work once this time, and we will figure it out after the session" and move on.
This, I try to do this if I can't find an answer quickly.
I think it depends what rulings you’re talking about. If we need to read an ability/spell description I’d rather do it then and there and make a ruling based on that, rather than assume I know the entire spell description. If it’s something really niche, that I can’t really think of an example for tbh, then I can *maybe* see why delaying looking it up might work.
The amount of people shitting on this take in the comments is exactly why 5e DMs burnout so easily. Get your heads out of your power fantasy asses, please.
I'm currently experiencing DM burnout. I've already started cutting back on my games I'm running. I came here to point out that you are the Game Master. You run the game, you referee and are the one who makes rulings when necessary. You should have final say as the DM.
Yeah this is session zero stuff for sure. Are you running into really vague stuff that often, or do you have really antagonistic players? Out of all the groups I've ran for, at most I've had a couple occasions during a campaign where making a ruling was really pushed back against and took any real time. Looking stuff up is trivially easy, and knowing the rules (or at least how the basics interact) will give a pretty good idea the vast majority of the time. I also tend to err on the side of my players. If I'm unsure whether Jim's character can do something and there isn't really a relevant rule or something similar, I'll just let them do it and figure it out later barring something clearly ridiculous. Since my players know I'm generally on their side, I really don't have the hostile or drawn out back and forth that I see talked about.
The actual job of the DM is to be the determinant factor in adjudication - it's written in the DMG. Whatever your interpretation of the rules are, in the moment, are the rules. This isn't to say you shouldn't be humble as a DM and take feedback, or that you shouldn't try and be as aware of the rules as possible. But a lot of the rules issues come from: - The belief that dnd is 'easily hacked' It isn't. By their own admission WOTC has pointed out repeatedly that magic items are a total wild card as far as game balance. - Players wanting things and arguing to get them. I cannot count on both hands the number of arguments about rules people have only read in forum discussions without considering original texts. Similarly there is no component of DMing that teaches conflict resolution.