On RAW, RAI & RAF

[DanyBallon]

For your information, in his new column Sage Advice Mr. Crawford gives us his own definition of RAW, RAI
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings


Quote from Jeremy Crawford

When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.

RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we published.

RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.

When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.

RAF. Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to his or her players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.”

We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players. Sometimes my rules answers will include advice on achieving the RAF interpretation of a rule for your group.

I recommend a healthy mix of RAW, RAI, and RAF!

[mephnick]

Incoming endless debate on whether a mix of RAW, RAI and RAF, as stated by Crawford, is RAW, RAI or RAF.

[DanyBallon]

Incoming endless debate on whether a mix of RAW, RAI and RAF, as stated by Crawford, is RAW, RAI or RAF.

Lets wait until its first Sage Advice colum to see if he clearly indicates, what is RAW, RAI and RAF in his answer, to see if there will be endless debate or not.

If to a given question, (i.e. Does PW:K on a shape****ed druid kill him outright or does it revet back to base form with full hp?), he answer as follow then there should not be too much debate:

RAW clearly state that..., or RAW is definately murky see RAI

RAI (when necessary) explain the designer intent for the rule in question

RAF (when applicable) an option for your home game where modification to RAW or RAI could bring more fun.

[Kurald Galain]

Incoming endless debate on whether a mix of RAW, RAI and RAF, as stated by Crawford, is RAW, RAI or RAF.

That would be RAC (Rules As Crawford), then :smallbiggrin:

There's also the ever-popular Rules As Misinterpreted, Rules As I Swear I Read That On A Forum Somewhere, and Rules As Whatever Makes My Character Most Powerful.

[CrusaderJoe]

Haha RAW/RAI/RAF/RAC is the new alignment for 5e...

[DanyBallon]

Haha RAW/RAI/RAF/RAC is the new alignment for 5e...

RAW is LN, RAF is definetly CN, then can we stipulate that RAI is True Neutral? :smallconfused:

and what about RAC? LG or LE? :smalltongue:

[WickerNipple]

That would be RAC (Rules As Crawford)

I prefer Rules As Tweeted for that.


RAW is LN, RAF is definetly CN, then can we stipulate that RAI is True Neutral?

I would argue RAI is the CN choice. It is total selfish chaos as soon as anyone mentions the dreaded words 'common sense'.

[CrusaderJoe]

RAW is LN, RAF is definetly CN, then can we stipulate that RAI is True Neutral? :smallconfused:

and what about RAC? LG or LE? :smalltongue:

LG I think. He is very lawful in his answers and really probably didn't have to agree to do all this... Might consider that he's a good developer for doing it. Plus so far he has been doing a good job.

[Urpriest]

Is this the first time that the devs have acknowledged forum-lingo like RAW before? I don't think any previous sage advice has used the term, anyway. It's pretty encouraging from that perspective.

[T.G. Oskar]

RAW is LN, RAF is definetly CN, then can we stipulate that RAI is True Neutral? :smallconfused:

and what about RAC? LG or LE? :smalltongue:

Pretty much that, yeah. RAC/RAT would be Unaligned, though.

The fact that now RAW and RAI were codified, but not RACS(D) (Rules As Common Sense [Dictates]) wasn't.

As for the way Sage Advice will deal with questions? Probably all by RAW, but where RAI has to go, it'll go on a gray box. Then, a disclaimer of "the most recent content between Errata and Sage Advice is the correct interpretation" or something, since it'll be most likely that after a year there'll be enough answers to make a rules rewrite...that will be playtested and surveyed...that will make the SA ruling obsolete. Or so it should work "in an ideal world".

[CrusaderJoe]

Is this the first time that the devs have acknowledged forum-lingo like RAW before? I don't think any previous sage advice has used the term, anyway. It's pretty encouraging from that perspective.

I think so but I didn't pay attention to the articles during the playtest.

[Psikerlord]

I'm interested to see the RAI, but if RAF means alternate rules, that's what I want most (like the healing options).

[Chronos]

RAF is certainly the most useful for fighting off a Blitz.

[NotALurker]

in other words "we made a bad game, but its ok because YOU can fix it with RAI and RAF!!"

[DragonSinged]

in other words "we made a bad game, but its ok because YOU can fix it with RAI and RAF!!"

I don't think that's the RAW.

[heavyfuel]

I don't think that's the RAW.

Sure it is. p.4 of the DMG:


[...] but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you're in charge of the game.

It's also RAI, as in, the developers seem pretty lax about releasing poorly written rules, because they know DMs can just fix whatever they think is broken with Rule 0.

[calebrus]

Sure it is. p.4 of the DMG:



It's also RAI, as in, the developers seem pretty lax about releasing poorly written rules, because they know DMs can just fix whatever they think is broken with Rule 0.

That's a flawed argument.
Rule 0 has existed since the beginning of TTRPGs.
Using it as your basis of why you believe 5e is a "bad game" basically means that you think every single TTRPG that has ever been made is a bad game, because Rule 0 exists in every TTRPG.

You can believe 5e is a bad game all you want, but you can't use Rule 0 as the basis for that belief unless you are claiming that there has never been and never will be a "good" TTRPG.

[heavyfuel]

That's a flawed argument.
Rule 0 has existed since the beginning of TTRPGs.
Using it as your basis of why you believe 5e is a "bad game" basically means that you think every single TTRPG that has ever been made is a bad game, because Rule 0 exists in every TTRPG.

Your argument is flawed. You're assuming I've written things that were never typed.

I never said TTRPGs are bad games. What I said is that they - at least the ones I've played - have poorly written rules, and that in 5e specifically, the developers didn't seem to mind it since Rule 0 is a thing (never said it was a bad thing either)

Rule 0 has its purposes, it's the developers overreliance on it that bothers me, not only in 5e, but in pretty much every TTRPG. "Bother" and "overreliance" being the key words here, before you jump to any more conclusions

[calebrus]

You defended the position.
That's the same as saying it yourself.

[NotALurker]

That's a flawed argument.
Rule 0 has existed since the beginning of TTRPGs.
Using it as your basis of why you believe 5e is a "bad game" basically means that you think every single TTRPG that has ever been made is a bad game, because Rule 0 exists in every TTRPG.

You can believe 5e is a bad game all you want, but you can't use Rule 0 as the basis for that belief unless you are claiming that there has never been and never will be a "good" TTRPG.

rule 0ing an occasionally oversight is one thing, when the designers do not do their due diligence then say its ok because you can fix it is another thing.

Rule 0ing should be a last resort, or should be used when you want to game to do something it was not meant to do.
Not to fix holes of the system.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't think the separation of RAW and RAI necessarily makes 5e bad.

The designers had the goal this time of keeping things simple, low-power, and relatively balanced. From bounded accuracy to concentration, there are a ton of differences this time around.

But with all of these competing goals, all of the changes during development, and in particular for WoTC's desire to keep things simple, there were bound to be some blips. The reach wording is kind of funky, for example. Certain spells, such as heat metal or simulacrum, are a too strong when used properly. It's not clear whether crossbow expert allows bonus action firing of a single crossbow. And on and on.

I don't mean to debate any of the above points, but merely to say that understanding what developers intended something to do is not bad. Most DMs will do what is best for their game; that hasn't changed. But for leagues and particularly for new DMs, a source of RAI could be very useful, as I've said above.

[Chronos]

I think part of the problem was a desire to move to more plain language instead of legalese. What they didn't realize, though, is that legalese is plain language, and that ordinary everyday language is anything but plain. Now, sometimes, it's easy enough to figure out what they meant, like with weapon reach, so those aren't a big problem (they're a problem, but a really easy one to fix). In other cases, though, like the Contagion spell, it's obvious that there's something broken, but it isn't easy to see what the best fix is. And in yet other cases, there's something that's unclear, but either interpretation seems like it might be balanced, which can lead to unpleasantness like the DM and player making different interpretations, and not realizing they disagree until the player tries it at the table.

[DanyBallon]

As far as I'm concerned, RAI is a designer input to clarify RAW, and it's just fine by me, otherwise to get a flawless RAW it would requires to have a 1000 pages document written in fine prints.
I want a simple system to play my favorite game, so I'm wiling to accept rules that may not be crystal clear, and when needed look into the designer RAI for clarification. But any given moment RAF have precedence over RAW or RAI :)