The Internet as Rulebook

[Dhuraal]

First off, I acknowledge that this could be a general enough question to belong in the Roleplaying Games section, but I am mostly concerned with 5e and I intend this to focus more there. And second I am not really looking for answers to help with a problem I am having. More looking to start a discussion.

Anyway, what I am wondering is this; There are lots of sources of information, interpretations, advice, examples, and rulings out there these days for RPGs. We have the sourcebooks themselves, the Sage Advice tweets, youtubers such as Matt Colville, G&Ss GM Tips, and the How to be a Great Game Master Guy ( <- I recommend, if you have not come across his videos before), and you could even go point to live streams as examples of play; Critical Role, Acquisitions Inc, etc. But to you, how much weight do they hold?

I guess to be more specific I am referring to how valid do you consider various sources that you as a DM would use a law, what would you take as good (or better) advice you give preference to, and what do you call just one person's opinion? To my own perspective, there seems to be a lot of deification of certain sources and taking what comes from that as law. There are surely already 5 arguments going on about whether Sage Advice is RAW or not, but I would like to consider a step further. For instance, I'd say it is not uncommon to see a discussion going on and then someone will post a link to Angry Gm with the idea of "Boom! Angry Gm said this, discussion over!" And I know for my own experience at the table I had a player who, for about 3 months, would at least once a game respond to a ruling with "Well, on Critical Role they did 'x'."

So what sources do you take as authoritative and you would take as rulings for your own games?

What sources do you take as a legitimate source, to consider as more than just 1 person's point of view?

How would you deal with a player at the table treating some source online like these as authoritative and suggesting or perhaps demanding/arguing for their ruling?

Yes I am aware I repeated myself a bit.

[KorvinStarmast]

Guidelines, not rules. That's what the internet has. You are the DM, you make the call. That's your role.


Official stuff that aren't the rule books/published books?
Errata and (usually) published Sage Advice in the SA Compendium at the WoTC site.

Useful and helpful? Sometimes Sage Advice twitter/tweets by J Crawford
Not worth much time? Twitters by Mearls.

Generally useful in trying to think through things?
Angry DM sometimes.
RolePlayingGames Stack Exchange sometimes
GiTP 5e forums on some optimization discussions, and some creative ideas.

A few other sites that now and again cross my bow. The Alexandrian has some pretty good advice on running games. (Justin Alexander)

[lunaticfringe]

Critical Role is a terrible source for the how rules work, at least from what I have seen. No idea if they get better.

If I like a rule or think its interesting I will propose to my players first. DM's who change stuff on the fly or do not make you aware that something works differently irk me. I know sometimes people forget, I have done it so it's not a huge deal. Things will pop up you don't like or are cheesy , file it away and work on it between sessions.

I am the Authoritative Source. DMs adjudicate the rules, that's how the game works. If you have a problem I will discuss it with you after the session. I try and wrap up before people have to leave so we can talk about whatever. I try to be open to trying different stuff so if something is a hard no I usually don't get a lot of pushback. Mutual Respect and whatever.

If someone were constantly arguing with me I'd probably boot them. It's a game, I don't like constantly bickering with someone.

What is it they want to try? Might be worth trying for a session.

[Arcangel4774]

While DnD isnt a religion, i tend to use a similar process to tje Wesleyen Quadrilateral of the Methodist Church. His idea is that you must look at an idealogy or practice through scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

Scripture is quite simply RAW. In other words, what exactly the books say. This side has more sway than any other.

Tradition has to to do with what has came before. This could be forum members or shows. It puts a value to the familiarity some people may find with tbese rulings, and the idea that the rulings have lasted because they work.

Reason is for an understanding of why the rules are the way thet are. Some sage advice is like this. It allows insight into whether the ruling should be followed. For example, GWF only working for weapon damage instead of attack damage was primarily done to cut down on the amount of time it takes.

Experience lends towards the judgement of the dm itself. Sometimes you coukd rule RAF because its more fun. Othertimes you may decide tk change/add things that you fealt were wrong based on your own expefience.

[GlenSmash!]

Critical Role is a terrible source for the how rules work, at least from what I have seen. No idea if they get better.

Critical role quite literally uses a different rule book. They just released it in fact.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well...My players aren't optimizers who spend oodles of time on forums at the current moment. So most don't really know that the errata is even a thing. In this case, I go with the idea that it's PHB only, unless the DM makes it clear about eratta/sage advice in a particular case, instead of taking the document wholesale. I usually have a document of house rules and setting fluff, so it's easier to add it in there.

As for the player, I'd tell them that I prefer to handle in-depth rule disputes out of session, due to time constraints. I will consider which ruling I believe is best, but also will consider arguments from ALL players before deciding which rule suits the group best. I don't care what the designers think, they're not currently at the table. I don't care what is or isn't in the rulebook, I want fair, fun rules for the game we are all currently playing, even if it is technically cheating or ignoring the person who created the ruleset. I might back down if every player disagrees, but that will take discussion outside of the game, not during.

[lunaticfringe]

Well...My players aren't optimizers who spend oodles of time on forums at the current moment. So most don't really know that the errata is even a thing.

Yup. I the few times I've used Sage Advice was to argue with people here.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Matt Colville is a pretty decent replacement for large chunks of the DMG, at least in my opinion.

[Honest Tiefling]

Matt Colville is a pretty decent replacement for large chunks of the DMG, at least in my opinion.

Is there an easy link to his rulings I could peruse?

[Kuulvheysoon]

Is there an easy link to his rulings I could peruse?

He's more into the theory and practice of DMing, not so much into the minutiae. Here's a link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8&list=PLlUk42GiU2guNzWBzxn7hs8MaV7ELLCP_) to his Running the Game series on YouTube, which range from 10-35ish minutes, depending on the topic. An excellent resource if you're just starting out, much better than the DMG (IMHO).

[Arcangel4774]

Matt Colville is a pretty decent replacement for large chunks of the DMG, at least in my opinion.

Hes also a pretty great author. His ratcatcher series is amazing.

[Sigreid]

I completely discount the internet, including sage advice as an authoritative source. First, I don't want to try to keep up with all the opinions/changes to opinions. Second, the worst game related fight I've been part of in a table top was spawned by a friend giving more authority than I believed was wise to some internet sources.

[SpamCreateWater]

I believe the only voice we (my DM and I as we're the only ones who have these discussions) consider an authoritative voice is Jeremy Crawford. Even then, if it goes against the feel of our current campaign we may not use it.

Matt Colville and other YouTubers, Sage Advice, and forums like this are good places to get alternate views on rulings. But we don't take them as gospel.
Everything is discussed and debated until one of us convinces the other, or the DM puts his fingers in his ears and goes, "Nananananana." :smalltongue:

[lunaticfringe]

Critical role quite literally uses a different rule book. They just released it in fact.

My players lent me copy, it's still 5e. I was referring to the fact that there are house rules, which is stated & as it should be. And they went through an edition change.

Someone else's game isn't a good source for the game you are in. I think it can be entertaining and useful for ideas, tips, & style. That's about it.

[furby076]

While we can ignore whatever is said, including whats in the books, i thought crawford/mearls/sage advice are official errata? Yea they can make mistakes, but the book and even errata are laden with mistakes

[Sigreid]

While we can ignore whatever is said, including whats in the books, i thought crawford/mearls/sage advice are official errata? Yea they can make mistakes, but the book and even errata are laden with mistakes

It may be official, but constantly going by errata and sage advice presents your players with a moving target on what the rules are. I think it's much better to make a ruling and be consistent with it.

[JackPhoenix]

My own rulings and houserules > books + errata > Crawford's UA + Keith Baker's blog for Eberron stuff > certain people on this forum who know what they're talking about > almost everyone else > Critical Role and some other people who should RTFM first and/or stop trying to push their houserules as RAW.

At least for me. Certain people may fall under the last and third-to-last category, depending on the topic in question.

[Dhuraal]

Sources such as live streams of Critical Role and Matt Colville videos can also impress upon people ways to play the game more than just rules as well, now that I think of it. Both appear to have a bit more of a play style of throwing out the rules and doing whatever, if the rules are getting in the way of fun or what is interesting. A stance I can respect, though can be considered heresy by some. While I am, personally, glad that there are sources of inspiration that encourage "have fun!" more than "follow the rules!" I fear it leads to players and/or wanting to just do whatever they want and the rest to go with it.

Unearthed Arcana introduces another wrinkle. No matter how much I try to impress upon people that it is in beta (if not alpha), a lot of players I know treat it as full fledged content, and expect to just be able to use it, or using it (rather than just published content) as a litmus test for their own homebrew material's balance :smallsigh:

[Blacky the Blackball]

For me it's relatively simple.

The printed books contain the rules of the game, but those rules are subject to interpretation (or house-ruling). As the usual DM - and the one in the group usually considered to be the "rules expert" - the interpretation of those rules usually falls to me. However, I don't impose rulings or interpretations unilaterally. If there's any disagreement about how something should work, we discuss it as a group and come to a consensus.

Anything not in the printed books - whether a post on a message board or something on YouTube or even a tweet from one of the designers - is considered to be merely unsolicited advice. We might take it into account when deciding how to interpret a rule, but we don't feel in any way beholden to it.

And we've never used Unearthed Arcana or third party supplements (except the ones I've written - but they started as our house-rules anyway!)

So to answer the specific questions in the OP:


So what sources do you take as authoritative and you would take as rulings for your own games?

There is no authority other than group consensus. Even the RAW in the book is secondary to that.


What sources do you take as a legitimate source, to consider as more than just 1 person's point of view?

The printed books are the only sources we consider to be "more than just one person's point of view".


How would you deal with a player at the table treating some source online like these as authoritative and suggesting or perhaps demanding/arguing for their ruling?

That's a bit of a hypothetical for me, since I'm the only one in the group who reads about D&D online.

However, someone suggesting something they found online is no different from them suggesting something they thought up themselves. As for demanding/arguing for it, again this is no different from arguing for an interpretation or house-rule that they thought up themselves. We'd find it a bit weird for someone to be demanding a particular ruling in any case (we're not that sort of group, and I can't remember it ever having happened).

[Demonslayer666]

...

So what sources do you take as authoritative and you would take as rulings for your own games?

What sources do you take as a legitimate source, to consider as more than just 1 person's point of view?

How would you deal with a player at the table treating some source online like these as authoritative and suggesting or perhaps demanding/arguing for their ruling?

Yes I am aware I repeated myself a bit.

1). Basically none. Sage advice is just advice. I only use the rules for rules, so only sources that directly copy the rule books.

2). If I have an inkling to get other's opinions on a matter, I simply google "D&D 5e _____". I like to use this site and Enworld forums.

3). Session 0 handles this. I tell my players up front that what I say goes, and I will do my very best to play by the rules and I outline that the rules are the main books. I also tell them I'm not perfect and make mistakes, so arguing is to be very brief, and once I make a judgement, it ends. We can look it up later and discuss it later. The whole point is to play the game, not argue over rules.