PDA

View Full Version : RAW and RAI



JNAProductions
2015-01-30, 11:20 PM
What exactly do they mean? I'm aware that RAW is the actual rules, and RAI is the generally accepted use of the rules, but waht do they stand for?

Kid Jake
2015-01-30, 11:32 PM
Read As Written and Read As Intended.

Cazero
2015-01-30, 11:37 PM
Rules As Intended : what the rules should be according to the game designer.

Rules As Written : what is actually printed in the book.

It's difficult to translate an idea in a formal rule without distorting it or messing with it's scope, wich is why there is a difference.

JNAProductions
2015-01-31, 12:15 AM
Thank you both for clearing that up.

dps
2015-01-31, 12:51 AM
Rules As Intended : what the rules should be according to the game designer.

Rules As Written : what is actually printed in the book.

It's difficult to translate an idea in a formal rule without distorting it or messing with it's scope, wich is why there is a difference.

While this is true, a bigger reason is that many game designers have poor writing skills.

Grod_The_Giant
2015-02-01, 06:12 PM
While this is true, a bigger reason is that many game designers have poor writing skills.
And that many players take the most literal possible reading to squeeze out every bit of advantage they can.

Gnoman
2015-02-01, 07:01 PM
Also, a lot of time a new edition of a given game carries things over directly from a previous edition, not realizing that it depended on something else that was changed to some degree, causing ambiguities and dysfunctions.

Synovia
2015-02-04, 03:59 PM
And that many players take the most literal possible reading to squeeze out every bit of advantage they can.

Players don't take the most literal reading - they take the reading that is most beneficial to them, and they'll stretch as much as they can.


"RAW" really doesn't mean anything - reading is by itself interpretation.

Segev
2015-02-05, 12:05 PM
Actually, there is specific denotative meaning. Often, there are multiple valid interpretations of specific denotative meaning - in this case, understanding the RAI or at least game balance can usually help determine which meaning to go with. Doing so leaves you well within the bounds of the RAW.

Other times, the RAW don't say what the writer thought they should, and lead to weirdness. Still, this is denotative meaning. It's where house rules often start cropping up, especially if people largely agree on what they think the RAI were and like that better.



One thing I think game design could benefit from is either small entires of "designer's notes," or otherwise clauses or blurbs where things have examples given of how they're intended to be used, or what the writer was thinking.

Even an "intended uses" entry could be helpful. So if you see a spell that allows you to tell the truth and ensure nobody believes you, the writer would either spell out, "This is intended for use when you want to gain credibility while misleading," or possibly whatever else he was thinking. It could shed light, too, on whether he realized that this is something you could do with a standard, non-magical deception check. You say you're speaking the truth but using your deceptive skill to make it seem implausible. If he says, "Yes, you could do this without magic, but this also lets you..." that would tell you he DID think of it.

Of course, it wouldn't be perfect. But knowing what authors were thinking when they wrote abilities and rules would often help with RAW/RAI discussions.

Jakinbandw
2015-02-05, 01:34 PM
Read As Written and Read As Intended.

I always read RAI as Rules As Interpreted. Interpretations can be wrong, or right, but they are often all we have.

Segev
2015-02-05, 02:25 PM
I always read RAI as Rules As Interpreted. Interpretations can be wrong, or right, but they are often all we have.

It's "Rules as Intended" because it's attempting to analyze the intent of the original author for use as a guide as to how to apply them.

"Rules as Interpreted" would be only applicable to RAW, as one cannot interpret a rule accurately in a way it is not written. The point of the RAW/RAI discussion tends to center around whether the RAW can, do, and should achieve the ends of the RAW, and, if the answer is "no," how to adjust the RAW to match the RAI or how to use the RAW for a more useful end.

Segev
2015-02-05, 02:49 PM
Thought of a good example.

Iron Heart Surge is fairly clearly intended to remove harmful debuff effects, like paralysis, mind control, polymorphing, etc.

It may or may not be intended to be usable when you are truly out of commission, e.g. when unconscious, petrified, rendered mindless, or dead.

It is fairly obviously not meant to get rid of "the sun" just because a drow with daylight sensitivity uses it.

The RAW, however, give it a standard action activation time, which most of those conditions prevent you from having the available standard action to take. It also is worded such that it's possible that only things like "the sun" can really be removed by it: it takes out the 'effect' rather than the symptoms thereof.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-05, 02:58 PM
A literal interpretation is still an interpretation.

Segev
2015-02-05, 03:38 PM
A literal interpretation is still an interpretation.

Not disagreeing. I'm saying that "RAI" is about "intention" not "interpretation."