Game Design: Intentionally Vague Rules?

[Oramac]

Pretty much what the subject says. Are there any rules in 5e that you believe were left intentionally vague or ambiguous? Which ones? Why? Is this a good thing?

I have my own thoughts, but I want to see what the hive mind has to say first.

[PhantomSoul]

Wouldn't it be easier to try to find where explicit and clear rules are in 5e? xD

[GalacticAxekick]

Nope

Besides advantage and disadvantage being something the DM can arbitrate, every ruling is pretty straightforward as written.

[MrStabby]

Inspiration... DCs for skill checks. Some stealth stuff. A lot of social stuff is open ended.

A lot of stuff is so open ended we don't even realise it - when we see a rule we see the limitations of the rule and what isn't covered. When we don't see a rule at all we don't have the prompt to think that.

[Yakk]

Almost all skill checks are left intentionally vague. Stealth was intentionally vague so that people with different views of how Stealth worked could all say "this is what I want" - you could read the original like 4e stealth or like 3e stealth or like OD&D stealth depending on your biases.

Monster CR was written to be "build the monster, then judge how strong it is" as a defence against the 4e "monster formula" backlash. This confused a bunch of people, and I believe was intentional. I'm not sure if Vague is the right term.

Magic items - how to get them, their prices, etc - was left vague. Explicitly in some cases.