I keep getting into discussions about rules as written and rules as intended. It seems to come up a lot in DnD 5e, one of the two systems I currently run. And with the announcement of a new edition coming in the future, there have been some calls for a change away from “natural language” rules. This post is meant to share and give examples and a rationale of WHY some players and DMs are very vocal about not liking the natural language approach. I’d also like to point out that I will pick on DnD 5e here. Why? Because these discussions are coming up as part of the recent announcement of a new version. ALL games have some degree of this problem, I am just using 5e as my punching bag today because WotC are starting to prime the new-edition hype engine!

Let’s get into it then. There is a continuum on which I think most ttrpg players and DMs sit. On one end there is the perspective that the rules are just kind of there to be used as needed or ignored. This side maps well to both very “old school” players and, I think, a large portion of the current 5e fanbase. The “rules as general principles” group also fits well with the linear narrative or emotive styles of play.

On the other end of the slider is the perspective that the rules are concrete limits and guardrails. I have also argued, and believe, that rules are often themselves mechanical expressions of a player character. A good ruleset, in my opinion, lets a ttrpg player mechanically represent their character regardless of player ability to roleplay. The skills, abilities, modifiers, and other game mechanics let a player express qualities they cannot or are not good at expressing. Imagine a low charisma player playing a high CHA character, for example. This view maps, I think, to the 3.5/PF mindset and also maps to those coming from wargaming and some varieties of board gaming.

I’m going to call this concept the rules axis. I’ll refer to the first group as the “loose” end and the second group the “tight” end. For the record I am very much on the tight end of the spectrum, at least for games like Dungeons and Dragons. I also love trying to roleplay. I also like players having the ability to let mechanics portray a character the player is not.

Having defined all that, the loose natural language rules are really only a problem for players and DMs that fall an arbitrary distance towards the tight end of the rules axis. Loose players don’t care, they don’t really engage with the game mechanics as expression of character on that level most of the time. This is fine, this is not a judgement of games that are run with loose rules. There are lots of ways to play! Even as a self proclaimed “tight” player and DM, I will often reach towards the loose end of the spectrum when I think it makes for better play at the table.

Where I see this become a problem is when a player and DM on the tight side run into conflict on how a loose rule should be defined or interpreted. This is the fundamental issue and thesis statement: Rules should not be written such that two people can read the same rules and come to wildly different outcomes that have a meaningful impact while playing the game.

Okay, time for my punching bag. I’ll bring out the modern-classic example of Conjure Woodland Beings. And lest you think I am grabbing for the most egregious example, I only learned about this because it happened in my 5e game and almost derailed a session.

You summon fey creatures that appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears:

One fey creature of challenge rating 2 or lower Two fey creatures of challenge rating 1 or lower Four fey creatures of challenge rating 1/2 or lower Eight fey creatures of challenge rating 1/4 or lower

A summoned creature disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends.

The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which have their own turns. They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don’t issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions.

The GM has the creatures’ statistics. You can see some sample creatures below.

The issue lies in the first and last lines. A player can read this (entirely without being a rules lawyer) as the player has the choice to summon the type of creature and decide how many, within the constraints above. What is not made explicitly clear is who decides which creatures. The DM has the statistics, but it does not actually state if the DM or player decide the type of creature. Moreover, in prior editions of the game summoning spells generally allow the player to decided explicitly. Other summoning spells in 5e actually do allow the player to decide, for example Summon Elemental. A DM may read the above and decide because it does not say the player decides, I the DM, get to decide. In Sage Advice and on Twitter it was stated the fictional DM in this scenario is correct. For this spell, the DM decides the type of creature. Now this may seem overwrought, but that spell can be amazingly powerful in the right hands. Summoning eight pixies for example is a pretty awesome ability, granting a host of innate spellcasting to the PC and party.

Now the problem here is not really in adjudicating that in the moment. A DM has a Monster Manual and the list of creatures. Let’s ignore how annoying this is for the DM and carry on. The problem is a player could be reading the rules, picking spells and expecting them to work according to their interpretation of the text. I think the player choosing is a very justifiable conclusion, based on other spells in 5e and prior editions. I would not expect a player to be looking up Sage Advice rulings for something like this. In fact, if a player is ready with Sage Advice posts, I might have to take some steps as DM as part of my prep.

But as a DM, I really want to take the Sage Advice interpretation. Why? Here is why, from the entry on Pixies:

Special Traits

Magic Resistance. The pixie has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects. Innate Spellcasting. The pixie’s innate spellcasting ability is Charisma (spell save DC13, +5 to hit with spell attacks). It can cast the following spells, requiring only its pixie dust as a component: At will: druidcraft, greater invisibility (self only) 1/day each: confusion, dancing lights, detect evil and good, detect thoughts, dispel magic, entangle, fly, polymorph, sleep

Fly, polymorph, dispel magic and some other goodies, up to eight times! So back to our player, they just found an awesome spell! They add it to the character sheet, and then in the crucial moment, they cast the spell and say “I conjure eight pixies and command them to polymorph the party to giant apes!” And then I say “No, you summoned eight sprites.” And then the player will be legitimately confused and angry, and they wasted a spell slot. That sucks. That is where natural language is poor game design. The player made good faith choices according to other precedent and history, and got the rug pulled out from under their feet. Fly would be better than polymorph now… unless you polymorphed the party into something that could fly.

There are other cases where wording and/or natural language itself cause problems. Examples:

  • Defining or not defining entities as creatures, types, objects etc.
  • The bizarre wording of how you can cast a spell(s) via your bonus action and action.
  • The completely inconsistent handling of alignment in 5e character creation, in other published material, and in the planned changes for the new edition/version/whatever this new product is.
  • Combining Ranger’s Favored Terrain and Outlander background.
  • Various Peace Cleric powers that can take effect once per turn instead of per round. Really the turn versus round thing is all over the place. I have to assume that rules that specify once per turn actually mean once per round, but I have no real proof. Except that it affects a lot of class abilities and seems utterly insane.
  • Lots of locations, traps, etc in published adventures/modules.

A side note here: I think you can have a healthy debate around most of the examples listed above. That debate is really “is this a language problem or a game design problem?” Regardless, I think the natural language rules issue is fundamentally part of the issue.

To generalize out I will state that I think there should not be situations where the language of a spell or ability or location or trap causes conflict between people at the table. This probably impacts “tight” players more, but it is a benchmark that many tight players use to compare systems and decide what to run and what to play. Players should have a full understanding of the spells and abilities they hold, and how they can usually be expected to interact with the world they play in. Errata should be a thing to reference in extreme edge cases, not multiple times a session. In most cases this simply requires adding or removing a line or two to a description.

This whole natural language thing seems small, but happens often enough in 5e that it has a real dampening effect of the fun at the table. I hope WotC takes the time to understand that while natural language may be a nice design goal, clarity and common understanding should trump natural language. Players should be able to read the rules, make choices, and play the game without resorting to errata, Sage Advice, or massive amounts of on the fly rules adjudication because the rules sacrifice meaning for “natural language”.

Another side note: WotC has also repeatedly and explicitly shifted the responsibility of making the game actually work onto the DM. That could be a whole topic. I think this is fine for UA and homebrew, but I except published rulebooks that have an MSRP of fifty dollars to actually… work. I have some hope regarding the tags they referenced. Tags work very well in PF2e, and I would love to see more games take that approach, 5e included. Tags are also fundamentally using non-natural language to define specific features in the rules. For those unaware, PF2e uses rarity tags to basically tell players and DMs “Hey, this thing, it might be a bit out of tune, so make sure the DM reads it and approves you using it”. In that system, this is an explicit exception that gets called out. So it still isn’t great, but at least from the starting line they have handy tags on every single thing that might be a bit wonky.

And for the record, in the example of Conjure Woodland Beings, I let the player have the 8 pixies. A few turns later I used Thunder Step into the location of the now invisible Pixies. I’m not a monster!