D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[Oracle_Hunter]

I prefer my games to have detail and consistency. It might not be visible or needed at all times, but if I want to look, it is there.

If wizards need their fingers to shoot many spells, a criminal punishment for wizards in a hypothetical country might be to break their fingers.

It *can* be important, and I would like that level of detail for most, if not all, rules in the game.

In order to maintain this, the description of happenings in the game world must fall within an acceptable variation.

EDIT: And sometimes I do change this as GM. When I do so, it is always to clarify a rule needing it, or at setting creation.
If the rules say wizards don't need fingers to cast and I decide they will, then I do it at the start of the game and make sure my players know I have done it (houserule document)

Then as you know, this is the sort of thing that DMs can more easily tailor themselves than say the Game Designers.

For example, in 4e there are no rules saying precisely how Wizards cast spells. For most people, it doesn't particularly matter in most situations -- and if it does come up, the DM can make a decision. The best thing for a DM like you is that Players don't come in with preconceived notions you have to fight against.

So, while it is nice to have such rules IMHO they are better left to the "fluff department" than the "mechanics department" if for no other reason than they are really simple to describe as fluff and much harder to describe as mechanics.

EDIT:

Yes and no. Certainly, the "Power Mad DM" is an OOC problem, but that's a case where it really doesn't matter what the rules are or aren't anyway.

But even quality DMs and quality players, the kind with all sorts of positive descriptors (mature, intelligent, rational, cooperative, etc.), can come to a legitimate disagreement over the rules when the rules aren't clear.

And that, I would say, is certainly a fault which can be laid at the feet of a game designer.

My point, rather, was that "quality DMs and quality players" do not need clear rules to avoid disagreements because they can work that out easily; the real hazard was in messy disagreements and no rules can stop Munchkins and Power Mad DMs from getting into those.

As a result it is better to think of rule clarity as a "Foreseeability" issue rather than try to nail down every lose end that might be (ab)used by self-interested parties. This means not spending time rigorously detailing all possible edge cases but rather focusing on rules whose meaning are clear to "Objective Third Parties:" they are simpler to write, clearer to read, and less likely to spark intense honest disagreement amongst "quality" people