Crawford says monk stuff ain't magic

[Tanarii]

There are elements of the game that it's best to leave vague, but it has to have some benefit. I don't see much of a benefit behind making it unclear what is and isn't shut down by an anti-magic field.

Totally agree.

But it's my 'job' to generally disagree with Pex on anything related to vagueness of 5e vs specificity of 3e. Even though I loved it generall during the 3e era, and when in the specific case he may have a point. I wouldn't want him to be disappointed in me.

[Cybren]

Totally agree.

But it's my 'job' to generally disagree with Pex on anything related to vagueness of 5e vs specificity of 3e. Even though I loved it generall during the 3e era, and when in the specific case he may have a point. I wouldn't want him to be disappointed in me.

To some extent questions like that ARE things you might want to have variable by table though. "What is magic and how does it work" is something I'd rather the rules are vague on, not specific, because it constricts world building.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To some extent questions like that ARE things you might want to have variable by table though. "What is magic and how does it work" is something I'd rather the rules are vague on, not specific, because it constricts world building.

Very much agree. My settings magic is decidedly nonstandard, with large setting consequences. Tying things down tighter would cause dissonance, where it fits currently.

[Vaz]

To some extent questions like that ARE things you might want to have variable by table though. "What is magic and how does it work" is something I'd rather the rules are vague on, not specific, because it constricts world building.

But given that as the world builder, you can change that, or make exception via McGuffin its entirely in World Builders hands anyway.

'I want someone else to tell me I'm not limited' sounds like a needless extension of 'I'm not limited'.

[Tanarii]

To some extent questions like that ARE things you might want to have variable by table though. "What is magic and how does it work" is something I'd rather the rules are vague on, not specific, because it constricts world building.

Honestly, that's exactly why I've come to prefer the 5e approach overall. Table variation is expected ... on purpose.

[Pex]

Honestly, that's exactly why I've come to prefer the 5e approach overall. Table variation is expected ... on purpose.

Table variation is good for the tone of the campaign, the make up of the party, the plots of the adventures. It is not good for the fundamental rules of how to play the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Table variation is good for the tone of the campaign, the make up of the party, the plots of the adventures. It is not good for the fundamental rules of how to play the game.

Ipse dixit.

YMMV. De gustibas. Let's not have this debate again. We all know where we all stand on it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But given that as the world builder, you can change that, or make exception via McGuffin its entirely in World Builders hands anyway.

'I want someone else to tell me I'm not limited' sounds like a needless extension of 'I'm not limited'.

I'm going to expand on my last point, since I'm no longer on mobile in the car.

Even among published settings, magic works quite differently in each setting. The spells (game mechanics) are similar, but the underlying theories are different and so the worlds respond in different patterns. Combine that with an explicit decision not to have a default setting (Forgotten Realms is only the setting for AL, not for the books entire), and you get a need to not pin things down tightly to one world.

There's a trade-off with consistency. To get consistency (with magic), you need to have a working model of how magic works in the particular setting. The more consistent you make that model, the more restricted it is to one particular setting, and the greater the expectations that players have on that being the case. Effectively, setting a hard default raises the barriers to player buy-in, because you're eventually making a whole new system. Since doing so gets exponentially harder the more pinned-down, specific rules there are, the probability of dissonance rises greatly since no DM can keep track of all the moving parts.

For example, take the Great Wheel planar model of most of 3e. The assumption that there is a Lawful outer plane that contrasts with a Chaotic outer plane, or a Positive Energy plane that contrasts with a Negative Energy plane pervades the rules (especially as far as the spell and ability tags go). It forces a particular view of outsiders and results in a very specific feel. My setting, where alignment specifically, and in-universe, is not a thing would not work without a major overhaul. There are too many mechanical and expectation pieces that depend on alignment being a thing, and certain races/types having certain alignments. As I've said on other threads, my angels are not necessarily good (some are, some aren't)--they're defined by their purpose and the source of their power (the Great Mechanism). Devils are not evil (some are, some aren't)--they're defined by their refusal to swear allegiance to the Powers and to the Mechanism and their resulting need for a source of power (which they find in making and keeping contracts with mortals). Demons aren't evil either, nor are they chaotic--they're defined by their goals (which all involve the overthrow of the gods and the Mechanism) and their power source (consuming mortal souls). Some gain their diet of souls in fair trade for services rendered without deceit; some delight in corrupting and consuming unwary souls.

Same goes for the magical system. There is no Weave in my setting--magic pervades and makes up everything (as anima). There is no mundane--everybody is magical (but not necessarily a spell-caster). This magic is created by life and growth, discovery and innovation. This makes souls the magical currency of the universe. Manipulating them, consuming them, paying with pieces of a soul, etc. All of this requires very few changes to mechanics--only to the descriptions of things. This means that in-play, I can stick close to the text without dissonance with the setting. All of this is exactly courtesy of the "vagueness" of the rules. Doing this in 4e would have been reasonably easy, due to the strong fluff/crunch dichotomy of that system. Doing this in 3e would have been nearly impossible and involved an entire rewrite of the monster manual, the spell system, basically everything to account for the differences.

Game systems can go one of two ways--
* Maximum consistency, leading to a single-setting system. The various WarHammer game lines are that way. You can port to other settings, but it's really really hard since so much presumes that setting.
* Maximum setting flexibility, leading to a tool-kit approach. These (in the extreme) end up mainly only restricting the genre and/or tone of the game. FATE and Powered By the Apocalypse systems are like this.

D&D has always sat on the fence (which is both good and bad). It's not a totally build-the-setting-to-fit-the-game system like FATE, nor is it a single-setting system like Only War or Dark Heresy. That means that the designers have to carefully walk the line--not setting too hard of defaults and not baking too much of the fluff into the crunch, but also not divorcing the two entirely (like 4e was accused of doing).

[LeonBH]

The tangent at hand was settings, not systems.




On the subject of systems:

D&D
AD&D
AD&D 2e
WEG d6 Star Wars, every edition.
Multiple d20/OGL products, from the Thieves' World adaptation to a bunch of random stuff I picked up used cheap
HERO 4th and 5th (6th went full-lawyer-mode sideways, and anyway the guy who runs their forums started imposing a political-opinions litmus test on the moderators and decided I didn't pass, so I broke off any involvement with the place).
Every edition of Vampire through utter disappoint that was Requiem.
Multiple editions of Warewolf.
Read through and studied (but didn't directly play) all the other White Wolf products through about that time.
Traveller
GURPS (only read, not played)
Mechwarrior (Battletech-setting RPG)
Pendragon
Legend of the Five Rings (4th ed)
Mythras (read for reference)
The Burning Wheel (reading it right now as I get time)
The most recent Conan RPG (reference)
Literally scores of free and sample products off DriveThru RPG (mostly read through for reference)

And I'm sure that's not a complete list.

I even forced myself to read through some of Ron Edwards' pretentious little products.

You've found glaring contradictions in all those settings? (Now that I think about it, I'm actually not surprised.)

Have you considered looking into "tiny RPGs"? If you're looking for a consistent world with no contradictions, the most obvious way to cut down on them is to cut down on the scale of the world. Less world, less mistakes.

Mechanical Oryx paints a freeform world.

Everyone is John lays down a world viewed through the lens of a schizophrenic (and any contradictions that result in the setting, can be explained by their schizophrenic delusions).

I also notice you didn't list D&D 5e. Are you not a 5E player, or did you consider it was just a given?

[Tanarii]

Have you considered looking into "tiny RPGs"? If you're looking for a consistent world with no contradictions, the most obvious way to cut down on them is to cut down on the scale of the world. Less world, less mistakes.

If you're looking for a constistent world with no contradictions in the underlying rules structure, best move out of this universe.

[LeonBH]

It's not me you're responding to, but I'd like to butt in anyway.

I wouldn't go so far to say 5E shouldn't be played, but this topic is further evidence that the on purpose decision to have 5E be based on rulings and not rules was a poor one. Obviously 5E has rules, but there are many things so vaguely worded it causes a lot of confusion. It's not enough to say let the DM handle it. He shouldn't have to handle it. That was the game designers' job.

Personally I hadn't any issue of monks in an Anti-Magic Field. For me it's obvious the monk can flurry in it but Burning Hands or shadow teleporting wouldn't work. Apparently it's not so obvious to others. It could be my obviousness is due to 3E thinking of how it works, but 5E purposely works differently.

It would be nice if there was a definitive solution, but that would require a universal rule, not a DM ruling. 5E doesn't want to do it that way.

Edit:

Re Fireball

Simpler does not equal better. Doesn't equal worse either. People aren't complaining how 5E Fireball works because it's not vague. People complain how 5E Conjure spells work because they are vague despite being simple, namely they don't define who determines the creatures conjured. People aren't complaining how 3E Fireball works despite the so called plethora of references because it's not vague. People also don't complain how the Summon Monster spells work because they are also not vague. (Technically some people do complain the summoned monsters add to combat time because the player's turn takes longer. It's a footnote but not important to the point.) If it takes 2 weeks to learn the 3E PHB compared to 1 week to learn the 5E PHB, that proves 5E is easier to learn but no one is disputing that. Once 3E is learned the number of references are irrelevant. What relevant is that the references are known, defined, and consistent. Some people may not like what the 3E rules say, but they know what the 3E rules mean. Nothing is perfect and there can exist a vagueness here and there in 3E, but they are less in percentage of rules than 5E (opinion) and more easily figured out how they work because of consistent and defined terms.

I agree that systems should have well-defined rules, games or not. But for me, the clarity of those rules in a game that sells itself as a system open to tweaking, isn't that important. I can accept that 5E sometimes produces these issues that people can debate about online, as long as at the table, when a vague rule comes up, everyone respects when the DM says "this is what happens. Now, let's move on."

If you look at it another way, without this vagueness of the rules, there would be no debates. What's the fun in that?

[LeonBH]

If you're looking for a constistent world with no contradictions in the underlying rules structure, best move out of this universe.

How true. I had a laugh at this remark. Hehe.

[McNinja]

There is no common sense in a game that handles the supernatural and abnormal.

By that logic, if Cthulhu rises from the ocean and walks into New York, you should try to fly by jumping off a building, because a supernatural being exists, and the things like gravity couldn't possibly still govern us.

I hate seeing absurd logic like this. Reality still exists. Quantum mechanics, physics, gravity, all still exist. Being able to shoot fire from your hands does not mean that the laws and rules of reality don't exist, it just means you, or whatever character or creature, can bend them.

[Zalabim]

Back from my weekend, and I'm pretty sure all spells and class features are exclusive lists, while general rules are more likely to be inclusive lists. Certainly anything not specifically described, like flowers blooming or potatoes growing in the ground, is still included in general principle. (Or excluded in the case of potatoes, for some settings.)

Also, it doesn't change anything about spells, but all the class entries in the SRD are class features only. Things like Sworn and Beholden or The Magic of Ki simply do not appear in the barebones 'just the rules' format of the SRD. As in, the class features are rules and the descriptions in the write-ups before that are not necessarily rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) Back from my weekend, and I'm pretty sure all spells and class features are exclusive lists, while general rules are more likely to be inclusive lists. Certainly anything not specifically described, like flowers blooming or potatoes growing in the ground, is still included in general principle. (Or excluded in the case of potatoes, for some settings.)

2) Also, it doesn't change anything about spells, but all the class entries in the SRD are class features only. Things like Sworn and Beholden or The Magic of Ki simply do not appear in the barebones 'just the rules' format of the SRD. As in, the class features are rules and the descriptions in the write-ups before that are not necessarily rules.

1) Yes. Certainly class features and spells are exclusive--as exceptions they have to specify exactly what they're modifying. Most general rules specify that they're not exclusive with words like "examples such as...", etc. Every spell or feature stands alone on the general mechanics except where it explicitly references another feature or spell. "It doesn't say I can't" is invalid reasoning in this edition. Unless you have an exception written into a feature or spell, you can only do those things that every other character can do, those things covered in the general resolution mechanics.

2) I very much agree. Those entries are default conceptions that hold for the standard worlds. A baseline, if you will. But any part of a class entry not in the SRD is expected to be one of
a) additional examples of sub-classes (which a DM can add or remove at will, they're atomic)
b) expected setting variation material. Your paladins may not be the same as my paladins. AND THAT'S NORMAL. How ki (or magic) works is part of expected setting variation in this edition. As a result, it shouldn't directly interact or modify mechanical elements like spells. DMs should consider the interactions when worldbuilding (for consistency and fit-and-polish if nothing else), but the mechanics don't care how magic works.

[Tanarii]

Back from my weekend, and I'm pretty sure all spells and class features are exclusive lists, while general rules are more likely to be inclusive lists. Certainly anything not specifically described, like flowers blooming or potatoes growing in the ground, is still included in general principle. (Or excluded in the case of potatoes, for some settings.)

AMF may be a specific to the general rules, but there's no particular reason to assume that the general statement that it blocks out the magical energy of the multiverse, is then followed by an exclusive list of the only ways it how it does that. Making the general statement, in effect, not completely true.

OTOh there's no particular reason to assume the list of how it does that is inclusive, or merely sub-set of all the possible ways it blocks all magical energy, either. And that the general statement is just a (minorly) inaccurate prelude comment to the details.

The issue in this case isn't the section titled The Magic of Ki in the Monk class. The issue here is that, as they did with not a few spells, they tried to have their cake and eat it too. They put in something that is apparently meant to be treated as descriptive (usually referred to as fluff), followed by something meant to be treated as resolution (usually referred to as mechanics) ... and those two things don't completely line up, as the latter is merely a subset of the former*. And they do this in an edition where the rules are supposed to be an organic whole, ultimately rejecting the false dichotomy of fluff vs mechanics in favor of plain English.

The problem is sometimes plain English is kinda wonky. No getting around that, which is why some people foolishly try and hold on to the concept of fluff vs crunch.

Edit: * of course the other possible way to look at it is simple: they do line up if you don't try to automatically treat the part about blocking the magical energy of the universe as a standalone statement and look at it in the broadest possible way. Context and all that. That's why plain English can be a little wonky, and I jumped down the wrong trouser leg. And honestly still haven't managed to let go of completely, as this post is evidence of. /facepalm

That said, I still hold that the 'problem' is more with the language of AMF itself, internal to the spell description if you will. Not with a specific vs general between the spell description and the class features.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That said, I still hold that the 'problem' is more with the language of AMF itself, internal to the spell description if you will. Not with a specific vs general between the spell description and the class features.

I agree. It's reasonably easy to misread this particular spell. That's why I emphasize the basic scope concepts--you can't read any sentence in a spell as an individual unit. The whole spell stands alone, individual sentences don't. That's a context mistake (commonly called proof-texting when it's done maliciously instead of mistakenly). The minimum safe context size for 5e in my experience is an ability (although sometimes you can get away with a single paragraph).

[KorvinStarmast]

There is an alternate first-principles understanding of spells and magical effects that is compatible with the text and resolves the quandry (and answers many other such questions).

The Resonance Theory of Magic

Very much enjoyed that post. Have you considered sending it in to Crawford or Mearls as a way to help resolve some of the weird corner cases?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Very much enjoyed that post. Have you considered sending it in to Crawford or Mearls as a way to help resolve some of the weird corner cases?

I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's made things more straightforward for me as a DM since I thought of that model.

I'd write it up more formally first--it's an idea I have for my world, so some of the terminology (anima) is specific for that. I'm also not on Twitter, so I'm not sure how to bring it to their attention. I can write it up on my setting blog (where I also do some more theoretical posts), but from there...not sure.

[Max_Killjoy]

You've found glaring contradictions in all those settings? (Now that I think about it, I'm actually not surprised.)

The question keeps getting blurred, and I'd really like to keep it clear -- there are two separate questions:

1) Is the setting itself, as a fictional reality, internally consistent and coherent?

2) Are the system and setting in sync? Is the system a good "map" of the fictional reality? (I'm trying to avoid using "model" because that causes an entirely different discussion about models).

[Tanarii]

I agree. It's reasonably easy to misread this particular spell. That's why I emphasize the basic scope concepts--you can't read any sentence in a spell as an individual unit. The whole spell stands alone, individual sentences don't. That's a context mistake (commonly called proof-texting when it's done maliciously instead of mistakenly). The minimum safe context size for 5e in my experience is an ability (although sometimes you can get away with a single paragraph).

Yup. I got stuck on 'plain english' vs 'fluff/mechanical' again. That's not really the issue, or at least not in the direction I was trying to make it out to be an issue. The issue is I was parsing the spell and then taking out of context. Which is sorta the exact opposite of 'plain english'.

Once I did that, then fluff/mechanical becomes a division I ended up needing to make out of necessity, even though I was trying to dance around it and avoid it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yup. I got stuck on 'plain english' vs 'fluff/mechanical' again. That's not really the issue, or at least not in the direction I was trying to make it out to be an issue. The issue is I was parsing the spell and then taking out of context. Which is sorta the exact opposite of 'plain english'.

Once I did that, then fluff/mechanical becomes a division I ended up needing to make out of necessity, even though I was trying to dance around it and avoid it.

I wrote a bigger piece on interpreting rules text and really should clean it up and post it somewhere...

Basically I think of the rules as being made of 4 pieces

*resolution mechanics. These are the "general rules" most commonly dealt with.
* descriptions. These give insight into the in-universe workings of things. Not fluff exactly, but usually the first to get changed, often variable between tables.
* Facts. Tables of defaults. A longsword does 1d8 slashing damage and is versatile and a martial weapon.
* Exceptions. These are the core of the abilities and spells--they modify a fact (this longsword does 1d8 + 1 slashing damage and pierces immunity to non-magical slashing damage) or a resolution mechanic (add CHA instead of STR to that attack roll).

Spells (especially) pair descriptions with exceptions. The description tells why it works in-universe (to give a mental picture and ground expectations), the exception text tells how it works in-game (the mechanical piece). Usually it's clear which is which, unless the spell or ability is badly worded. The exception is the binding part--the description is mutable with table consent (can you cast burning hands without touching your thumbs together, for instance if tied up? Mechanically, you can cast it normally while restrained. In-fiction...that's up to the group to decide if they like that).

[Tanarii]

Spells (especially) pair descriptions with exceptions. The description tells why it works in-universe (to give a mental picture and ground expectations), the exception text tells how it works in-game (the mechanical piece). Usually it's clear which is which, unless the spell or ability is badly worded. The exception is the binding part--the description is mutable with table consent (can you cast burning hands without touching your thumbs together, for instance if tied up? Mechanically, you can cast it normally while restrained. In-fiction...that's up to the group to decide if they like that).

I think that's a false division. A rule is a rule is a rule. Like I said, I'm not seeing the problem isn't a mismatch between description and mechanical rule. I see it is attempting to parse one part of a rule and another, and read them independently. I was doing that, and then choosing to interpret one of them in a way that disagreed with the other. And once I did that the only possible way to reconcile them is to designate one part "description/fluff" and the other part "actual rule/mechanical".

That's why I call the fluff/mechanical distinction, or description / resolution if you prefer, a false distinction. It relies on parsing. The end result is inevitably silly interpretations of things and online arguments.

[Xetheral]

Re Fireball

Simpler does not equal better. Doesn't equal worse either. People aren't complaining how 5E Fireball works because it's not vague

It may not be vague, but the wording does produce problems. In particular, the use of the word "target" in the spell text is inconsistent either with the targeting rules or the rest of the text of the spell.

Namely, if "target" in the spell text means "the target of the spell", then it conflicts with the targeting rules, which state that the target of an AoE should be a point. If "target" in the spell text means "is affected by" then it conflicts with the fact that objects are simultaneously not targets (the spell limits "targets" to creatures) and yet are still affected by the spell (they don't take damage, but can be ignited).

Fortunately, this inconsistent use of "target" isn't likey to produce a problem at the table, because the intent can be inferred: (1) the target of the spell is a point, (2) creatures must save and take damage, (3) objects take no damage but can be ignited. But it's still frustrating to have to rely on inferrence to figure out what Fireball does in this edition. Had they replaced the word "target" in the spell description with "creature", it would have instead been explicitly clear.