RAI is Impossible

[Easy_Lee]

It's impossible to play the game exactly as intended. This is because every rule in the game can be interpreted, by design, and the likelihood of getting your interpretations exactly right (here meaning exactly as the developers intended) is zero.

I will demonstrate.

For my argument, I will assume that there are a total of twenty rules that can be interpreted in two ways each. I will add five rules that have three interpretations. Finally, I will add just three rules with four interpretations.

Assuming there is only one correct interpretation, and all interpretations are equally possible, the number of possible combinations of interpretations exceeds Earth's population.

D&D 5e has a lot more than twenty-eight rules open to interpretation. Add to this optional rules, interpretations of optional rules, misread rules, and the monster that is the exact combination of classes and races your players have chosen.

Achieving RAI is impossible. You can't play D&D exactly as it was "meant" to be played. Even getting close would require seeking developer input on every rule.

But that's okay. The developers adopted a "rulings, not rules" approach to 5e, meaning no single interpretation is necessarily correct. It's firmly up to each DM to decide what's right for his table.

I don't think we should worry as much about RAI on these forums as we do.

[UrielAwakened]

I'd say RAI is impossible in D&D. But that's because things aren't worded clearly enough generally speaking. The fact it's impossible is on the devs, not on the playerbase. In my opinion it COULD be possible if the devs would have just tried a little bit harder.

Magic the Gathering has much more complex game interactions than D&D and everything is worded so it can only be read one way, the way that the developers intended.

Except for, you know, Chains of Mephistopheles. That card is just bonkers.

[Caelic]

RAI is impossible, and RAW is impossible, for exactly the same reason. One cannot play the game strictly and only by the rules as written. First, some of those rules have multiple possible interpretations; second, many situations are not covered by the rules (and this is by design.)

The common sense and judgement of the DM are critical to any roleplaying game; too many people discount them.

[smcmike]

“RAI” isn’t even a useful acronym. Neither is “RAW.”

Play by the rules as you understand them. If you are confused by them, read them again, talk it over with the people you play with, and, if you like, look to the internet to see if the developers or others have said anything helpful.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say RAI is impossible in D&D. But that's because things aren't worded clearly enough generally speaking. The fact it's impossible is on the devs, not on the playerbase. In my opinion it COULD be possible if the devs would have just tried a little bit harder.

Magic the Gathering has much more complex game interactions than D&D and everything is worded so it can only be read one way, the way that the developers intended.

Except for, you know, Chains of Mephistopheles. That card is just bonkers.

Except that MtG has many many errata and rule changes, card changes, etc. And that's for a closed system with pre-determined interactions. An RPG is a fundamentally different thing than a card game. It's an open system (meaning the set of interacting objects is neither closed nor known in advance) where verisimilitude is a key factor. One has no in-universe component (or rather, the in-universe component is designed post hoc to match the cards), the other is all about the in-universe reality.

Heck, if it were that easy to write and apply a complete, consistent rule set, then we wouldn't need layers of courts, judges, appeals, and lawmakers. But we do. And that's with billions of dollars spent (in just the US alone) on these things.

And yes, RAW suffers the same problems. RAW is not an actual binding thing. There are no rules, only rulings (which may follow the printed defaults and may not).

[Regitnui]

Perhaps we should introduce RAU: Rules As (commonly) Understood.

The most common and logical interpretation of said rules taking into account both developer input and individual table preferences.

[UrielAwakened]

Except that MtG has many many errata and rule changes, card changes, etc. And that's for a closed system with pre-determined interactions. An RPG is a fundamentally different thing than a card game. It's an open system (meaning the set of interacting objects is neither closed nor known in advance) where verisimilitude is a key factor. One has no in-universe component (or rather, the in-universe component is designed post hoc to match the cards), the other is all about the in-universe reality.

Heck, if it were that easy to write and apply a complete, consistent rule set, then we wouldn't need layers of courts, judges, appeals, and lawmakers. But we do. And that's with billions of dollars spent (in just the US alone) on these things.

And yes, RAW suffers the same problems. RAW is not an actual binding thing. There are no rules, only rulings (which may follow the printed defaults and may not).

MtG errata is rarely about clarifying how cards work and is almost always in modernizing language to keep it consistent with newer cards. Things like changing Invulnerable to a creature keyword, Unblockable to "Cannot be blocked" to allow for situational unblockability, etc...

[Willie the Duck]

“RAI” isn’t even a useful acronym. Neither is “RAW.”

Play by the rules as you understand them. If you are confused by them, read them again, talk it over with the people you play with, and, if you like, look to the internet to see if the developers or others have said anything helpful.

Don't say that. Sites like this would completely dry up if everyone tried to be reasonable. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, I think I mostly agree. Both RAI and RAW seem to have become causes unto themselves for unclear reasons that have, at best, reasons most related to "being right" or critiquing the authorship of the game, and very little to do with actually facilitating the playing of a fun diversionary pastime with oneself and others.

Given the vagaries of language, and the fact that what the author intended the rules to be is only important if you decide it is, I see no reason to put either RAW or RAI up on any kind of pedestal. An ironclad ruleset, where there could be no doubt about what a rule is would probably be so cumbersome as to be useless to a casual gamer, so I likewise understand why the designers do not seek to make that game.

[Caelic]

Reminded me of something I wrote a long while back.

The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization

1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.
A human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say that he doesn't. A character doesn't continue running around after he dies, even though the rules don't explicitly list any negative effects for death. If the designers spelled out every single thing explicitly...even the glaringly obvious...the core rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Brittannica, and would likely cost as much as a Ferrari.

2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.
The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry. This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability.

3. RAW is a myth.
This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to. This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game. Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.
This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial. Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.

4. Common sense is not a bad thing.
The rules were designed to be read with common sense. Yes, common sense will vary from person to person, but there has to be some basic level at which we agree on core assumptions, or the game is meaningless. If we have one interpretation of the rules where two levels of a prestige class give you infinite caster level, and another interpretation where two levels of that same prestige class give you two caster levels, then common sense tells us that the latter interpretation is the correct one. If a character reaches negative ten hit points and dies, common sense tells us that he doesn't spring back to his feet and continue fighting unimpeded.

5. Intent matters.
I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!" Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ. It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late. It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent." The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it.

6. Mistakes happen.
Everybody's human. You're human; I'm human; the folks at WotC are human. Sometimes, humans make mistakes. That shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to break the game. Take the Vigilante from Complete Adventurer, for instance. Anyone out there seriously believe that his rather abrupt jump from 1 third level spell at level 6 to 20 at level 7 is NOT a mistake? There are two ways to deal with a mistake like this: a sensible way, and a silly way. The sensible way: "Hmm. There's a column for fourth level spells with no numbers in it, and a column for third level with numbers that can't be right in it. Clearly, this was a typesetting error, and the second digit in the third level spells column is supposed to be in the fourth level spells column." The silly way: "Rules are rules! The rulebook says 20 third level spells at seventh level! If you do it any other way, you're houseruling! I'm gonna make some GREAT builds based on this rule!" Basing a build on an obvious mistake isn't optimizing; it's silly.

7. Simple Is Good.
There are a LOT of WotC sourcebooks out there. I did a rough estimate on the value of my collection just of hardcover rulebooks; it cost more than my car. Not everyone has that kind of cash to spend on this hobby. Not only that--a lot of people simply don't have the time to commit several thousand pages of rules, hundreds upon hundreds of prestige classes, and thousands of feats to memory. So: builds which are simple are good. There's nothing WRONG with a build that incorporates eight different prestige classes from seven different sources, and then tosses in feats from five more...but that build is going to be useful only to the people who have those sources, whereas the Druid 20 build that doesn't go outside of Core is useful to everybody. Sometimes, simplicity is worth more than raw power.

8. Tricking the DM is Bad.
We see a lot of "Help me trick my DM!" or "Help me make my DM cry!" requests on these boards. We see builds that are designed to look innocuous while at the same time being devastating to campaign balance. The idea is to lull the DM into allowing the character, then unleash its full power. Bad idea. Bad, BAD idea. At all times, two things should be borne in mind about the DM. One: he's in charge. If you try to trick him, he's totally within his rights to toss your character or YOU out of the game. Two: he's your friend. Trying to deceive your friends is bad. Be honest with your DM about what you want to do. If he says "No," deal with it. That's part of a DM's job. If you don't think he's going to say "Yes" to something, then trying to sneak it into the game on the sly is a sure way to make him mad.

9. Respect the parameters of the request.
This used to be a given, but people have been backsliding a lot lately. Someone comes on and says, "Hey, I'd like to play a Bard 4/Cleric 4. Can anyone help me optimize this? He immediately gets responses which boil down to, "Only an idiot would play that! You should be playing Pun-Pun, he's MUCH more powerful!" Sometimes they're more nicely phrased than this, other times they're not. The point is: people aren't offering him suggestions on how to make his character of choice better. They're telling him that he's "wrong" for playing that character, and that he should be playing a different character. The same goes for threads in which the poster explains the DM's house rules and restrictions at the beginning of the thread. More often than not, if these restrictions amount to more than "No infinite power at first level," someone will respond with the oh-so-helpful suggestion "Your DM sucks. Quit his game and never talk to him again."
I only wish that were hyperbole. It's word-for-word from a thread a while back. Optimization is about working within the rules to greatest effect. ANYONE can optimize in an environment with no restrictions. It takes skill to optimize where options are limited. Threads like these should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that skill...not belittle the poster or the DM.

10. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I remember bounding onto the boards many moons ago, shortly after the first release of the Persistent Spell feat, to declare that I had discovered (ta da!) the UNBEATABLE COMBO. Since Time Stop was a Personal effect spell, it could be Persisted! (Oooh, aaah!) I couldn't imagine why nobody had thought of this before. Of course, as it turned out, LOTS of people had thought of this before. Within about five minutes, I was directed to a ruling that said, "You can't do it." I was disappointed, sure...but I accepted it and moved on. There are a LOT of folks here with a lot of knowledge of the rules. Some of 'em are a little scary. They love nothing better than to go over a new rulebook with a fine-toothed comb looking for hidden gems. Sometimes, a genuinely overlooked concept will turn up. The recent builds using Sanctum Spell are a good example. The feat's been around for a while, but nobody really looked at what could be done with it.
More often, though, if a seeming "rules loophole" is being ignored by the boards, it's because it's been hashed out in the past and found not to work. Perhaps there's something elsewhere in the rules that nullifies it; perhaps there was a clarification. Very occasionally, there's simply a board-wide agreement that the rule is wrong...as with the recent FAQ claiming that Polymorph allowed the use of templated forms. If it turns out that your discovery falls into this category, the best thing to do is accept it and move on. Maybe the next one won't.

So: there they are. Make of them what you will.

[PhoenixPhyre]

MtG errata is rarely about clarifying how cards work and is almost always in modernizing language to keep it consistent with newer cards. Things like changing Invulnerable to a creature keyword, Unblockable to "Cannot be blocked" to allow for situational unblockability, etc...

But there are actual rule changes as well. The rulebook for MtG is huge and constantly evolving. And that's for a (relatively) simple game with known, fixed interactions.

[Cybren]

MtG errata is rarely about clarifying how cards work and is almost always in modernizing language to keep it consistent with newer cards. Things like changing Invulnerable to a creature keyword, Unblockable to "Cannot be blocked" to allow for situational unblockability, etc...

D&D can't have a mechanistic and deterministic ruleset the way a tcg does and i imagine that you can find figure out why

[UrielAwakened]

But there are actual rule changes as well. The rulebook for MtG is huge and constantly evolving. And that's for a (relatively) simple game with known, fixed interactions.

Yeah but the rules have changed gradually over 25 years and almost always to accommodate new keywords and interactions.

No different than D&D's periodic new editions.


D&D can't have a mechanistic and deterministic ruleset the way a tcg does and i imagine that you can find figure out why

Why not.

It's not that complex of a game. It's not even that open-ended of a game as far as a tabletop rpg goes.

[Caelic]

Why not.

It's not that complex of a game. It's not even that open-ended of a game as far as a tabletop rpg goes.


The simple fact that players can say "I engage in (activity X which is not covered in the rules) pretty much precludes a strictly-mechanistic closed system. (I mean, unless you want to put in a rule like "For any other activity, flip a coin. Heads means it works, and tails means it doesn't.")

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah but the rules have changed gradually over 25 years and almost always to accommodate new keywords and interactions.

No different than D&D's periodic new editions.


Uh, I'm thinking you haven't been paying attention. There are constant adjustments made to the rules on a monthly basis as new combos are discovered. Cards have been reprinted with overhauls, and not for consistency. It's a constantly changing environment.



Why not.

It's not that complex of a game. It's not even that open-ended of a game as far as a tabletop rpg goes.

If you can do anything that's not specifically allowed in the rules, it's open ended and can't be deterministic. If you can play in a setting that's not completely locked down, through scenarios that change as players act in ways that aren't pre-written, it's not deterministic. Etc.

[ad_hoc]

5e works extremely well if you apply the RPG equivalent of Occam's Razor.

The simplest/non-intrusive application of a rule/feature is the correct one.

Take the Healing Spirits debacle. Just have it trigger when a character starts their turn in the space. Then it heals 10d6 over 10 rounds and is a fine spell which doesn't require shenanigans.

In other words, if shenanigans are required to use something/apply a rule, then it's probably wrong.

[Vaz]

In today's episode of 'Let's speak the blindingly obvious', titled 'no **** sherlock'...

[Caelic]

In today's episode of 'Let's speak the blindingly obvious', titled 'no **** sherlock'...


Wait, I thought today's episode was supposed to be "Stepping On d4's Barefoot Frigging Hurts." Did someone change the schedule?

[Pex]

It's impossible to play the game exactly as intended. This is because every rule in the game can be interpreted, by design, and the likelihood of getting your interpretations exactly right (here meaning exactly as the developers intended) is zero.

I will demonstrate.

For my argument, I will assume that there are a total of twenty rules that can be interpreted in two ways each. I will add five rules that have three interpretations. Finally, I will add just three rules with four interpretations.

Assuming there is only one correct interpretation, and all interpretations are equally possible, the number of possible combinations of interpretations exceeds Earth's population.

D&D 5e has a lot more than twenty-eight rules open to interpretation. Add to this optional rules, interpretations of optional rules, misread rules, and the monster that is the exact combination of classes and races your players have chosen.

Achieving RAI is impossible. You can't play D&D exactly as it was "meant" to be played. Even getting close would require seeking developer input on every rule.

But that's okay. The developers adopted a "rulings, not rules" approach to 5e, meaning no single interpretation is necessarily correct. It's firmly up to each DM to decide what's right for his table.

I don't think we should worry as much about RAI on these forums as we do.

I accept the premise. My response is "That's the problem."

It's why I say I have to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day. When I join a game I don't want to have to ask the DM what rules are we using this time. I don't want to have to go through a list of staple questions of circumstances on how that DM will rule on those circumstances. I want to already know what my character can do as soon as I create it.

[Easy_Lee]

In today's episode of 'Let's speak the blindingly obvious', titled 'no **** sherlock'...

Sometimes people need to return to axiomatic truths to help them solve complex problems.

[pwykersotz]

Reminded me of something I wrote a long while back.

The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization

1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.
2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.
3. RAW is a myth.
4. Common sense is not a bad thing.
5. Intent matters.
6. Mistakes happen.
7. Simple Is Good.
8. Tricking the DM is Bad.
9. Respect the parameters of the request.
10. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

So: there they are. Make of them what you will.

I remember this post! This was and is a great post.

[Breashios]

Reminded me of something I wrote a long while back.

The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization

1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.
A human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms...

5. Intent matters.
I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!" Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ. It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late. It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent." The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it....

So: there they are. Make of them what you will.

I agree that Intent matters, but there is a problem here.

So maybe it is just a quibble, but not everyone has looked at the same sources of intent. In other posts I am often the voice of people not on forums such as this (probably a majority of players). I don't personally know what the CustServ is. I know Sage Advice .pdf and occasionally look up intent, usually getting it from Mr. Crawford's tweets.

I also know of people that have watched the games Mr. Crawford has run and have said "Oh, he did it that way. That must be intent." when that way went against the common understanding of RAW (or whatever we call it).

So I would say Intent matters to the degree that you are aware of it. If we push further, we can educate those that are unaware, but we should be careful not to berate someone for doing it wrong in a past case, when they were not aware of the intent - an occurrence I see often.

[KorvinStarmast]

Wait, I thought today's episode was supposed to be "Stepping On d4's Barefoot Frigging Hurts." Did someone change the schedule? Yeah, it came with the time change a few weeks ago. :smallbiggrin:

For the OP: try the Rules as Fun approach. It works.

In the immortal words of Dave Arneson: the rules lawyers are the enemy.

[smcmike]

Yeah, it came with the time change a few weeks ago. :smallbiggrin:

For the OP: try the Rules as Fun approach. It works.

In the immortal words of Dave Arneson: the rules lawyers are the enemy.

“Fun” is just another tool in the arsenal of the ambitious rules lawyer.

[Beelzebubba]

If you look at actual laws and law practice - the 'rulebooks of civilization', attended to by brilliant people spending their entire lives trying to make them - it's impossible to get written instructions 100% right and completely unambiguous in life. Anywhere. At any time.

So, duh. Why should a game, written in a couple of years a small staff, with a few small thin books of rules - with much of that space devoted to artwork - be able to?

You've uncovered the secret of life. There ARE NO PERFECT RULES.

There is only a group of people willing to come to a common understanding, and to have fun. And, whenever there is ambiguity, to handle things in good faith.

So, yep, it's not about interpretation. It's about attitude.

[opaopajr]

The "Intention" is to be open to the GM's judgment so as it can serve their setting's coherency on behalf of the table experience. That it asks one to consider their own coherency needs first, due to the manifold possibilities of Imagination Lands, it then allows a bloom of table diversity. Intention becomes a way to disengage from the gordian knots of Precision -- which can lose itself in details and clauses -- in order to communicate to consumers the desired effect in a broad Accuracy.

So, it's working as intended, and like Martha Stewart says, 'it's a good thing'. (tm) :smallamused:

[Sigreid]

Perhaps we should introduce RAU: Rules As (commonly) Understood.

The most common and logical interpretation of said rules taking into account both developer input and individual table preferences.

I like RAF, Rules As Fun.

[kyoryu]

You've uncovered the secret of life. There ARE NO PERFECT RULES.

There is only a group of people willing to come to a common understanding, and to have fun. And, whenever there is ambiguity, to handle things in good faith.

Exactly.

Which is why player problems (including the GM) are the first things that need to be resolved. If you can get a group of people all willing to communicate and compromise, you'll have a great time.

[UrielAwakened]

Uh, I'm thinking you haven't been paying attention. There are constant adjustments made to the rules on a monthly basis as new combos are discovered. Cards have been reprinted with overhauls, and not for consistency. It's a constantly changing environment.

That's not true at all. Can you give me some examples of any rules changing on a monthly basis because of combos, or cards been reprinted differently?



If you can do anything that's not specifically allowed in the rules, it's open ended and can't be deterministic. If you can play in a setting that's not completely locked down, through scenarios that change as players act in ways that aren't pre-written, it's not deterministic. Etc.

All you need are rules for how things that have a chance to fail are accomplished. D&D has that. It's really simple: Roll a die, add a number to it, compare it to a value. Higher or tied, you succeed. We're not talking about rules that are omitted because they aren't necessary (like rules for bathroom breaks or whatever), we're talking about rules that are written down but not written down well enough.

Every problem with RAI or RAW comes down to designers not taking the time to write things down properly. It does not stem from D&D being too "open ended" to write rules for or whatever this is about.

[Beelzebubba]

Exactly.

Which is why player problems (including the GM) are the first things that need to be resolved. If you can get a group of people all willing to communicate and compromise, you'll have a great time.

Goddamn you for being a better editor than me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's not true at all. Can you give me some examples of any rules changing on a monthly basis because of combos, or cards been reprinted differently?


Enjoy (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/ixalan-comprehensive-rules-changes-2017-09-28)

Note these include substantive changes, not just updates in wording.

Language is ambiguous. Inherently. By its very nature. Even computer code (which isn't natural language) can be ambiguous. Legal contracts (which are as tightly written as things get) are ambiguous. That's the nature of language, and you'll never change that. It's also not worth doing, as people can read and 99% of these rules debates are one or more of

*people (DMs or players) looking to weaponize rules against each other. This can't be fixed, as they'd twist words to do so if needed.
* people not reading the text. That also can't be fixed.
* people disagreeing about what's the best interpretation for their game. That's subjective.

[UrielAwakened]

Enjoy (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/ixalan-comprehensive-rules-changes-2017-09-28)

Note these include substantive changes, not just updates in wording.

Language is ambiguous. Inherently. By its very nature. Even computer code (which isn't natural language) can be ambiguous. Legal contracts (which are as tightly written as things get) are ambiguous. That's the nature of language, and you'll never change that. It's also not worth doing, as people can read and 99% of these rules debates are one or more of

*people (DMs or players) looking to weaponize rules against each other. This can't be fixed, as they'd twist words to do so if needed.
* people not reading the text. That also can't be fixed.
* people disagreeing about what's the best interpretation for their game. That's subjective.

Those are not major changes. One is just reworking what "prevention" means in magic terms and change it to preclude. He even says it's not functional in the article. One just breaks a bigger rule into smaller rules. One is how multiple draws interact and whether or not they're optional, specifically for one card. One adds Treasure to the list of subtypes. One adds to the list of Planeswalker subtypes. One adds to the list of creature subtypes. One adds a new ability word or two, which is common because each set adds new key words.

The only major change here is getting rid of the Planeswalker uniqueness rule and that's not because of combos. That's just making it work more like how legendary creatures do, where name is all that matters when you compare two things to see if they're unique.

This just proves what I was saying already: Something as complex as magic is possible to write down consistently, something as relatively simple as D&D should be as well.

Add phrases that have meaning to every spell and ability, like target, or each, or all, for starters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Those are not major changes. One is just reworking what "prevention" means in magic terms and change it to preclude. He even says it's not functional in the article. One just breaks a bigger rule into smaller rules. One is how multiple draws interact and whether or not they're optional, specifically for one card. One adds Treasure to the list of subtypes. One adds to the list of Planeswalker subtypes. One adds to the list of creature subtypes. One adds a new ability word or two, which is common because each set adds new key words.

The only major change here is getting rid of the Planeswalker uniqueness rule and that's not because of combos. That's just making it work more like how legendary creatures do, where name is all that matters when you compare two things to see if they're unique.

This just proves what I was saying already: Something as complex as magic is possible to write down consistently, something as relatively simple as D&D should be as well.

Add phrases that have meaning to every spell and ability, like target, or each, or all, for starters.

But they are substantive. That is, they change how the game is played and how the rules must be interpreted. That directly contradicts what you claimed. And that's for a very simple system where all the moving pieces are under the control of the designers. THAT IS NOT THE CASE FOR D&D. It cannot be the case without reducing it to a board game. And even then, people find loopholes/errors.

You're asking something that is literally impossible, especially for a small team like 5e's. You're expecting them to do something that the much larger MtG team struggles with, for a much easier problem. You're asking something that no government, with functionally unlimited resources, has even come close to solving. You're asking something that requires breaking everything we know about natural language.

[UrielAwakened]

You're arguing something completely different.

I don't want rules for everything. I want the rules that exist to be good. If you can't put the rules as you intend them on paper in a way that is clear and concise you should not be in a job that requires you to develop rules. Period.

And if you think those changes are anything like what we're talking about I can't imagine you've actually played much magic. Those are all very minute rule changes that only seek to clarify how rules interact with each other, not how cards interact with each other. Nothing is being rewritten or made obsolete there and 99.9% of games will go no differently now than they did before that update, aside from the planeswalker rule which just brings it in line with other other similar rules work.

I think you're overreacting. And I wish I had a job where the people who depended on me to do said job cut me a tenth of the slack that the D&D fanbase cuts these clowns.

[Demonslayer666]

Chaos!

These terms are not how we play the game according to the developers. They are used to distinguish a difference between a credible source and a made up one when referencing the rules.

RAW - quoting a rule
RAI - this is what I think it implies regarding other rules, this rule is written poorly, this should be in the rules, etc.

The source of the intentions is subjective, and does not have to be the developers. In fact, I don't care what the current developers think about their rules. I can take them or leave them at my discretion. I care what makes logical sense to me, and keeping my game consistent. I don't have to conform my game style to theirs. I can buy a Camero and drive it like grandma. Wait, that's horrible... I can buy a Prius and drive it like Andretti!

[UrielAwakened]

Chaos!

These terms are not how we play the game according to the developers. They are used to distinguish a difference between a credible source and a made up one when referencing the rules.

RAW - quoting a rule
RAI - this is what I think it implies regarding other rules, this rule is written poorly, this should be in the rules, etc.

The source of the intentions is subjective, and does not have to be the developers. In fact, I don't care what the current developers think about their rules. I can take them or leave them at my discretion. I care what makes logical sense to me, and keeping my game consistent. I don't have to conform my game style to theirs. I can buy a Camero and drive it like grandma. Wait, that's horrible... I can buy a Prius and drive it like Andretti!

I've always used them as follows:

RAW - What happens when you read a rule literally and it's bad. Leads to dumb interactions or over-the-top power creep generally. In the worst cases, it leads to rules that just functionally don't work at all.
RAI - The logical interpretation of a bad rule. An informal fix to a developer screwing up.

If neither of these are the case you don't call them RAW or RAI. You just call them the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're arguing something completely different.

I don't want rules for everything. I want the rules that exist to be good.



Without rules for everything, you can't have complete rules. Without complete rules, you're always going to need DM interpretation. That's the point. For an open system like D&D, adding more defined rules can actually cause more problems. That's what happened (in two different ways) in 3e and 4e.

3e tried to unify the whole system and failed miserably (at that task). The resulting rules interaction combinatorial explosion left all sorts of dysfunctional messes. Its advantage is that there's so much material written for it that you can justify almost anything within the "rules." But the system itself is full of holes, bad interactions, horribly written material (as in things that are not just ambiguous, but nonsense--no reasonable reading). There's no (barring some bits and bobs like grappler's 3rd point) nonsense in 5e--there are ambiguities, but no full on garbage text that has no meaning. That's a major advantage.

4e succeeded at unifying the system...at the cost of having disassociated mechanics and lots of moving parts and odd mechanical assumptions. Don't get me wrong. I like 4e. But it's a kludgy, awkward system that is hard to learn and use for anything other than tactical combat. I started with 4e, teaching it to teenagers. I ended up having to run a "rules-lite" version to have any hope of doing anything, and the required book-keeping was a pain. I then switched to 5e and it's been a breath of fresh air.

And anything you can say about RAI applies double to RAW. The rules don't really matter, as long as everyone at the table agrees on what should happen. They're nice defaults, and set a shared starting point. That's all they need to do, and they do that very well. The quibbles I've seen have been entirely people looking for loopholes and twisting language out of its socket to find them.

[Cazero]

This just proves what I was saying already: Something as complex as magic is possible to write down consistently, something as relatively simple as D&D should be as well.I disagree with your strange idea that D&D is simple.
Magic the Gathering is a complex game : it has a large set of strict rules that should be followed without ambiguity. Like with computer code, writing them properly ought to be sufficient for that.
D&D is complicated : the core mechanics makes arbitration mandatory (unless you can point me to the exhaustive orc AI part of the monster manual), there are rule exceptions everywhere, and said rules aren't even meant to be universaly applied (unless you think fire spells should work exactly as RAW underwater).

[UrielAwakened]

Again, you don't need rules for everything.

You know what needs to be accomplished in D&D. Rules for combat. Rules for skills. Rules for all of the mechanisms that give PCs agency. Rules for a DM to create a world and build encounters and run a game and drive a narrative (most of which 5e doesn't give you as is).

All you need are the rules that do actually exist to be clear and defined and use consistent wording.

Like give me any questionable RAW in the books. I'll rewrite it so it works.

Now don't get me wrong 5e omitted a lot of stuff, most importantly DM guidance tools, and secondarily things like common skill DCs and clear targeting rules for spells, but those are easily fixed and don't require some sort of functional rules processing engine to make work. It's a far cry from adding those and bloating the rulebook to thousands of pages.

[Lazymancer]

Is anyone here familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem?


Magic the Gathering has much more complex game interactions than D&D and everything is worded so it can only be read one way, the way that the developers intended.
Yeah. Which is why every tournament includes tons and tons of judges.

[UrielAwakened]

Is anyone here familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem?


Yeah. Which is why every tournament includes tons and tons of judges.

That's to make sure players play it correctly when they have a question and to make sure nobody cheats.

Not expecting everyone to know every single itemized rule by heart is completely different from needing to write down billions of extraneous ones. I'm not sure what your point is.

How does you arguing Magic is harder to document rules for help when I already think magic is a much more complex ruleset than D&D.

[Contrast]

“RAI” isn’t even a useful acronym. Neither is “RAW.”

Play by the rules as you understand them. If you are confused by them, read them again, talk it over with the people you play with, and, if you like, look to the internet to see if the developers or others have said anything helpful.

Apologies as this is a pet peeve of mine.

You say RAI and RAW aren't useful acronyms and then proceeded to say 'Try to understand the RAW and discuss it with your players, if you're still having trouble, try to find out the RAI to point you in the right direction'. We make acronyms and words because we use them to mean things - they clearly are serving a purpose otherwise we wouldn't be using them.

That said, if what you were trying to say is that people invest a lot more importance than they should in playing 'RAW' or too often think that something being RAI means a DM shouldn't rule any other way, I'm more inclined to agree. :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

Is anyone here familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

The one that say that people who are incompetent in a subject will think they are experts due to not understanding the subject, while people who are competent will know how little of a vast subject they know and think of themselves as less competent than they are?

[UrielAwakened]

The one that say that people who are incompetent in a subject will think they are experts due to not understanding the subject, while people who are competent will know how little of a vast subject they know and think of themselves as less competent than they are?

That's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Unoriginal]

That's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Ah, right, thanks. Dunno how I mistook one for the other.

The Gödel's incompleteness theorem(s) is apparently a demonstration of the limitations of any system containing arithmetic

[Lazymancer]

Not expecting everyone to know every single itemized rule by heart is completely different from needing to write down billions of extraneous ones. I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is that IRL not everything in MtG could be interpreted one way only (for whatever reason).


If you are referring to the possibility of having exhaustive clarity of rules somewhere, then you need to remember that in MtG every player-action that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden - which creates limited number possible interactions (that got hammered out throughout three decades of collected experience).

On the other hand, D&D is exactly the opposite: you can do anything that is not explicitly forbidden (which is much more demanding to ruleset), while feedback is incomparably smaller.

[UrielAwakened]

My point is that IRL not everything in MtG could be interpreted one way only (for whatever reason).


If you are referring to the possibility of having exhaustive clarity of rules somewhere, then you need to remember that in MtG every player-action that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden - which creates limited number possible interactions (that got hammered out throughout three decades of collected experience).

On the other hand, D&D is exactly the opposite: you can do anything that is not explicitly forbidden (which is much more demanding to ruleset), while feedback is incomparably smaller.

That's a good point but my argument has never been you need to explicitly have rules for everything unless it's forbidden. I think a system in D&D where quite the opposite is the case works, where any rules not listed are explicitly allowed.

My problem is more that the rules that are codified are rarely all-inclusive or consider all possible interactions. And that just requires a wider breadth of consideration on the part of the development team.

For instance, a rule as simple as "You can't have spell slots beyond the maximum you refresh after a long rest" fixes the Coffeelock.

[Easy_Lee]

For instance, a rule as simple as "You can't have spell slots beyond the maximum you refresh after a long rest" fixes the Coffeelock.

It also nerfs pure Sorcerers even further, which is why I really wish people would stop proposing this house rule. You don't need a rule to handle a hypothetical build you're never going to play or allow in one of your games. But that's beside the point of the thread.

D&D is not a well-defined system as it requires a DM to adjudicate actions that have no rules. That's true. But it's also true that the existing rules use unclear language.

We could never get the rules written in such a way that they could not be misinterpreted. But we might write a smaller set of rules that no reasonable person would ever misinterpret. For example, there is nothing particularly ambiguous about the Attack action. Contrast with Mage Slayer, which uses the unclear word "when" to describe the timing for its reaction attack.

[Lazymancer]

My problem is more that the rules that are codified are rarely all-inclusive or consider all possible interactions. And that just requires a wider breadth of consideration on the part of the development team.
Yes. Poor game design that doesn't get fixed for whatever reason is all too common in RPGs, even in supposedly top of the line products.

Though, I'd say, the problem is not in developers as such. Reason for MtG's clarity are tournaments (which force developers to conform to some basic minimum of competence), but this approach is inapplicable in RPGs. I'd suggest some sort of organized player-driven oversight as a solution, but that would require different topic.

[smcmike]

Apologies as this is a pet peeve of mine.

You say RAI and RAW aren't useful acronyms and then proceeded to say 'Try to understand the RAW and discuss it with your players, if you're still having trouble, try to find out the RAI to point you in the right direction'. We make acronyms and words because we use them to mean things - they clearly are serving a purpose otherwise we wouldn't be using them.

Apologies, but useless acronyms are a pet peeve of mine, and that isn’t quite what I said.

What purpose does saying “RAW” serve, as opposed to saying, for instance, “page 13 of the Player’s Handbook,” or, if you insist on being vague, “the rules?” None that I can see, and it comes with a couple of drawbacks:

1) It’s jargon. Jargon confuses the unintiated, and can make one sound like a nerd; and

2) “RAW” seems to be used in several different ways around here, including not only “the text of the rules” but also “all interpretations not inconsistent with the text of the rules” and “my interpretation of the text of the rules.”

“RAI” is worse. Note above that I didn’t say anything about what the designers intended - I said to check whether the designers or anyone else had anything useful to say about the subject. This might include a clarification of original intent, but it could also include errata or a discussion of balance or third party content, all of which are much more clearly discussed by saying “designer X said Y,” rather than using general acronyms.

People make acronyms for all sorts of reasons. Not all of those reasons are good, and not all acronyms promote clear discussion.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes. Poor game design that doesn't get fixed for whatever reason is all too common in RPGs, even in supposedly top of the line products.

Not everyone agrees on what is and is not "poor game design." Consider that painting as an artform is older than print, and people still can't agree on what is and is not a good painting. Now consider that gaming as we know it is much younger, and is also an artform.

In order to say whether a thing is poor design in any kind of measurable way, we have to first determine the design intent. If D&D 5e was meant to be balanced outside of combat, for instance, we might objectively say that it failed.

[Beelzebubba]

Again, you don't need rules for everything.

You know what needs to be accomplished in D&D. Rules for combat. Rules for skills. Rules for all of the mechanisms that give PCs agency. Rules for a DM to create a world and build encounters and run a game and drive a narrative (most of which 5e doesn't give you as is).

All you need are the rules that do actually exist to be clear and defined and use consistent wording.

Like give me any questionable RAW in the books. I'll rewrite it so it works.

Now don't get me wrong 5e omitted a lot of stuff, most importantly DM guidance tools, and secondarily things like common skill DCs and clear targeting rules for spells, but those are easily fixed and don't require some sort of functional rules processing engine to make work. It's a far cry from adding those and bloating the rulebook to thousands of pages.

1) 4e did that and many many people hated it, it no longer felt 'D&D'

2) Clear and Defined is still a relative term, and anything you write can be picked apart in the same way you're picking apart this game, don't fool yourself - you'll make it work FOR YOU

[PhoenixPhyre]

2) Clear and Defined is still a relative term, and anything you write can be picked apart in the same way you're picking apart this game, don't fool yourself - you'll make it work FOR YOU

And that's the fundamental problem with this notion that defining things would remove "problems" like the Coffeelock.

1) It's unclear to me if the coffeelock (or other such exploitative builds) are even a real (as opposed to theoretical problem). If they are an issue it's only in AL, due to the reduced DM capabilities inherent in organized play. Thus, the fix would be from the AL organization, not the core rules.

2) People who are looking to break things and play over-powered characters will just move on and find a new exploit. Things like reasonability, the feelings of others, etc haven't stopped them so far. It's not like these are being produced by novices accidentally--these require someone to research all the possibilities and intentionally try to push things as far as possible. All you get is a rules arms-race.

3) You can't fix what's fundamentally an OOC problem with a rules patch. The rules will just get ignored, like so many others. In fact, more explicit rules tend to cause the opposite problem--once you give the impression that the letter of the law is what counts (as opposed to the spirit of the law, which is usually more restrictive), people start feeling free to exploit one set of rules against another. More "precise" rules => more interaction between rules => more opportunities to break the system (more fragility). Much better to rely on DMs and tables to put the kibosh on munchkins and rules lawyers but leave things flexible.

4) Flexible, plain-language rules are much easier to teach new players and much more inviting, as well. Having to memorize a bunch of new definitions (and all the exceptions, curlicues, and dysfunctions, plus house-rules) makes for hard play. That's my experience when teaching 4e, anyway. Too many defined terms make it feel like homework and present the idea that only those options specifically allowed are possible (instead of the reverse--anything not forbidden is allowed).

[Alerad]

“RAI” isn’t even a useful acronym. Neither is “RAW.”

Play by the rules as you understand them. If you are confused by them, read them again, talk it over with the people you play with, and, if you like, look to the internet to see if the developers or others have said anything helpful.

That about sums it up.

[Hyde]

I don't know that every single potential interaction needs to be explicitly thought out, per the "coffeelock" nonsense. Some things get weird (and it's not really even that weird. Something really good at sustained adventuring would honestly be preferred over the Nova that is Sorcadin) and that's why we have DMs (also because stuff like dramatic tension is fun, and really who wants to do all that work?)

However, I'm firmly in the camp that many (not a majority, mind, but a significant amount) of the rules need to be evaluated and clarified, most notably in spells, but there's stuff. Oh boy, is there stuff. The problem with communication is that when you know what you mean, it becomes difficult to see other interpretations of the things you have created. I answered a question about Maximilian’s Earthen Grasp in the RAW thread earlier. It doesn't contain a provision for trying to grasp the original target again. The wording clearly needs to be revised to either A) Specifically state that the original target cannot be Grasp'd again (of course not, but it's technically an option) or B) "As an action, you can cause the hand to reach for a different creaturetarget within 5 feet of it or to move to a different unoccupied space within range. The hand releases any currently restrained target if you do either."

Personally, I'd probably make sure moving the hand allowed for an additional grasp as part of the same action, but really, this is kind of my entire point. It's a janky spell, and isn't nearly as clear as it could be. It doesn't have to be perfect, but yes, I would like to see a significant amount of effort behind editing and revision for clarity. I sort of understand why it's probably unfeasible, though.


And for the record, MtG card errata is NOT contained within the 226-page monster that is the comprehensive rules. Changes to card text are maintained via a separate database. "But DnD has hundreds of pages of rules text!" You fool. Overwhelmingly, the DnD rules are akin to the actual cards. If DnD had the equivalent of the MtG comprehensive, it would be as if the "Combat" Section were 200 pages long. Equipment, Feats, Class Features, Races... these are all just cards. (This isn't really directed at anyone, I just find the notion amazing and horrible to contemplate).

[bid]

It's impossible to play the game exactly as intended.
Ha!
It's impossible to cut a 2 inch square...
Yet if 10 persons tried, they'd still manage to call their "failure" a 2 inch square.:smallbiggrin:


And I'm sure someone somewhere intended to touch his ear with his elbow.
Or build in his head the perfect saga, imagining the simple work of 100 scriptwriters, with everyday people such as Hepburn and Nicholson. They'd used diamond scissors to cut small pieces of vellum with atomic precision.:smallcool:

How can we even approach this?
There's no point, any effort is meaningless. Might as well have all enemies called Garp and call this triangly bit a perfect square.:smallyuk:


Some will have you believe it's better to be exactly right twice a day than always be a little off. You can follow them in their belief that improvement is impossible, or you can try and maybe you'll get better.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

What, humans will never be able to perfectly communicate their intentions to one another 100% of the time? I'm pretty sure that's widely understood.

That doesn't mean making the attempt to understand the intent is useless, even if you aren't always going to be right.


For my argument, I will assume that there are a total of twenty rules that can be interpreted in two ways each. I will add five rules that have three interpretations. Finally, I will add just three rules with four interpretations.Assuming there is only one correct interpretation, and all interpretations are equally possible, the number of possible combinations of interpretations exceeds Earth's population.D&D 5e has a lot more than twenty-eight rules open to interpretation. Add to this optional rules, interpretations of optional rules, misread rules, and the monster that is the exact combination of classes and races your players have chosen.
This math is about as valid as Zeno's paradox, though.

[Malifice]

Actually thanks to postmodernism, RAW and RAI is impossible.

All text is subject to interpretation.

[Beelzebubba]

What, humans will never be able to perfectly communicate their intentions to one another 100% of the time? I'm pretty sure that's widely understood.

That doesn't mean making the attempt to understand the intent is useless, even if you aren't always going to be right.

I'm not saying it's useless, but there is a point of diminishing returns.

One thing that's abundantly clear to me now: if a group of people with healthy social skills sit down at a gaming table, with a good-enough game, there isn't a problem. You know when there is a problem? When someone has emotional issues, or comes in with something to prove, or cheats, or is just a jerk. 3.X tried to solve for those people, and in hindsight, it just made for too many rules, with too much complexity. (The 'splatbook' bloat just added insult to injury).

You just can't solve for the min-maxing sociopath at the table. Making a game they can't break means you make it fundamentally inaccessible and unenjoyable to the vast majority of people who want to try an RPG.

So, you make it relatively simple, consistent, easy to learn, and with a few intuitive strategies for dealing with edge cases, and then let the people at the table be themselves. They'll be fine.

You know how you solve most of the problems in the game? Pick your players more carefully.

[Lombra]

RAI is possible.

It just takes something that has vanished from our time.

Honest effort.

Your reasoning, Lee, is what a computer would apply, luckily, we are not computers, comprehending the intent of a human is possible, you just have to try.

Coffeelocks are clearly unintended, for example.

We're moving more and more towards the intent of digital comprehension, limiting ourselves only to objective and explicit truths. Just like a machine, which can only discern ones and zeroes. No offense intended, but this only makes me feel pity.

[Unoriginal]

Actually thanks to postmodernism, RAW and RAI is impossible.

All text is subject to interpretation.

No, post-modernism doesn't remove the possibility of literal sentences.

And interpreting a literal sentence as ironic is far older than post-modernism.

[Malifice]

No, post-modernism doesn't remove the possibility of literal sentences.

And interpreting a literal sentence as ironic is far older than post-modernism.

Yes it does.

For example, whose interpretation?

Yours or mine?

There is no truth in the text. Context is king, and context is subjective.

Objective truth doesn't exist.

[smcmike]

Actually thanks to postmodernism, RAW and RAI is impossible.

All text is subject to interpretation.


No, post-modernism doesn't remove the possibility of literal sentences.




There is no truth in the text. Context is king, and context is subjective.

Leaving aside Malifice’s epistemological claims, this is an example of how the term “RAW” serves to confuse.

It’s pretty clear that a large part of this disagreement is that Malifice and Unoriginal are using the term differently. Mal’s statements make sense if “RAW” is something like “the plain meaning of the text,” and he is making the claim that text has no plain meaning. Unoriginal seems to be talking about “RAW” as the literal text.

[Knaight]

1) 4e did that and many many people hated it, it no longer felt 'D&D'.

That's largely irrelevant. 4e changed a lot of things, and pointing to any individual change as the particular cause of that without specific evidence is specious. More than that, 4e's changes are all one implementation of a broader concept, and a failure in an implementation doesn't prove that the concept is bad.

There's plenty of examples of this in RPGs. Early D&D psionics was a mess, that doesn't mean that psionics can't work within D&D, as is demonstrated by 3.5 having a system that worked fine and the 5e Mystic shaping up pretty well thus far. FATAL is legendary for being terrible in basically every possibly way, that doesn't mean that all systems that have adult content or that try to be realistic or hew to mythology are bad, despite that being what was presented as selling points.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Leaving aside Malifice’s epistemological claims, this is an example of how the term “RAW” serves to confuse.

It’s pretty clear that a large part of this disagreement is that Malifice and Unoriginal are using the term differently. Mal’s statements make sense if “RAW” is something like “the plain meaning of the text,” and he is making the claim that text has no plain meaning. Unoriginal seems to be talking about “RAW” as the literal text.

I agree that RAW is confusing (as a term). It would be nice if it were possible to implement a text without interpreting it, but that's impossible. Even computer programs must be interpreted by the compiler/interpreter before they can run. Now this doesn't mean that any reading is equally valid, but it does mean that the reader is doing part of the work. This means that even good faith readings of the same text can vary.

As I see it, there are four types of rules passages

1) Unambiguous. These only have one reading that makes sense, and that meaning is conducive to fun.
2) Ambiguous. These have a discrete set of readings that make sense, and more than one is conducive to fun.
3) Missense. These passages have one or more readings that make sense, but none of those readings are conducive to fun.
4) Nonsense. These passages have zero readings that make sense.

The interpretation needed for case 1 is minimal. Questions about these passages usually can be answered without hesitation or discussion--a simple page citation suffices.

Case 2 requires judgement calls by the table. Which reading is best depends on the table--cutting out any of them reduces the aggregate fun (as you're forcing a less-fun reading on other tables that prefer it differently).

Cases 3 & 4 are editor/writer error, straight up. Fortunately, these are few and far between in 5e (much rarer than in 3e) and these usually get errata'd.

The difficulties with trying to move case 2 (what people argue about here on the forums) into case 1 (which everyone accepts) are that you risk diminishing fun even if you succeed, and worse you risk ending up in a case 3 or case 4 situation, which are outright bad. Most of the time, internet arguments conflate "It's not fun for my table" with "it's not fun for anyone == it's bad." That is, they're trying to put case 2 into case 4.

It's a subjective decision as to whether to prefer case 1 or case 2, and I don't think it can be made globally. In a competitive environment (MtG, for example), case 1 is strongly preferred, even at the cost of ending up with useless cards. In a cooperative environment like D&D, I find case 2 acceptable for all but the most basic of rules because that way each table can maximize its own fun.

[Pex]

Regardless if you liked what the clear rules said or not of the previous editions, we know D&D is capable of having clear rules. For 5E they chose not to have clear rules. For some people this is a hip hip hooray feature. For others it's a frustrating suck of a bug. With Xanathar's book they appear to be going back to clear rules, such as defined DCs for tool use, traps, how druids know animals to turn into, and how the summon demons and devils spells work.

New printings of the PHB cleared up previous vagueness, such as whether the Evoker's maximize ability worked on cantrips. Now it's clear it doesn't. Future printings may clear up those that remain, such as great weapon style and smites. What's in the book is more important than what Sage Advice says since not everyone uses or knows about Sage Advice nor even follow it if they do. Maybe they won't. If they do they may disappoint people such as Xanathar's identifying spells being cast rule, but at least there would be clear rules.

[Vaz]

Magic and L5R have active communities, if smaller. Why is there such a discrepancy between people in DnD, and people in L5R. The rules in DnD say you can do X, the rules in L5R say you can do Y. Why is it that Y is tighter in its rule definitions than X? Why is it that X's rules interactions are so much more loose, and allow for such differences in power?

Why do LCG's and CCG's allow for rules to be added so succinctly, and answered with sense, while Dnd is seemingly incapable of doing so?

Is it because JC and MM cannot afford to be seen in a bad light by admitting that they overlooked something, or that despite the playtest edition, there are issues still prevalent and aren't addressed by it.

The leadership of the game is awful.

I'm not having less fun in tightly written rulesets. I'm not having more fun in open rulesets. I'm having fun regardless of it.

Dnd's open to interpretation concept does nothing to aid or improve the game. Just because the game is closed doesn't mean you can't make stuff up.

We used to play the old L5R RPG in 3.5, and have characyers within that. I have a Crane Clan Kakita Courtier Iaijtsu Master who would intentionally dishonour opponents to pull them into a duel, and then kill them in the duel thanks to his Iaijutsu skill. There was a Matsu can Berserker, a Gaijin Ambassador from the Burning Sands, Centipede Clan Archer and a Phoenix water Shugenja.

We have still created homebrew cards for these guys within the tight ruleset. We all have extremely varied decks from each other.

So what does dnd gain from being loose with the rules? Sweet fa.

[Easy_Lee]

RAI is possible.

It just takes something that has vanished from our time.

Honest effort.

Your reasoning, Lee, is what a computer would apply, luckily, we are not computers, comprehending the intent of a human is possible, you just have to try.

Ah, you just have to try. I see. So, if I do like you and try, I'm certain I'll understand exactly what the designers were thinking when they wrote each rule of the game.

I'll tell you my intent in writing this. It's not the case that it's impossible to understand someone else enough to do something useful with the information. But it absolutely is the case that attacking someone else's argument as not RAW or not RAI is worthless when there are multiple interpretations and you don't know the intent.

And you don't know the developers' intent in every case, whether you think you do or not. You are not Crawford or Mearls.

[smcmike]

But it absolutely is the case that attacking someone else's argument as not RAW or not RAI is worthless when there are multiple interpretations and you don't know the intent.

I agree that attacking a particular interpretation as “not RAW” or “not RAI” is a bad way to argue, but, again, that’s because the terminology is bad. It doesn’t follow that all interpretations are equally valid. Some are better than others - more consistent with the text, more consistent from extra-text sources, more balanced, more fun, etc...

[Naerytar]

Yes it does.

For example, whose interpretation?

Yours or mine?

There is no truth in the text. Context is king, and context is subjective.

Objective truth doesn't exist.

If you sneak up to someone and throw a rock at his head, objective truth hits pretty hard and reliably ;)

Of course he can try to interpret the rock away...

[Easy_Lee]

If you sneak up to someone and throw a rock at his head, objective truth hits pretty hard and reliably ;)

Of course he can try to interpret the rock away...

There is no objective truth in games. None of it actually happened, thus it's all subjective. You may as well be arguing about religion.

[Regitnui]

There is no objective truth in games. None of it actually happened, thus it's all subjective. You may as well be arguing about religion.

Does D&D Fifth Edition revolve around the use of a twenty-sided dice as a core mechanic? Yes. This is objectively true. Ergo, your statement is logically false.

[Easy_Lee]

Does D&D Fifth Edition revolve around the use of a twenty-sided dice as a core mechanic? Yes. This is objectively true. Ergo, your statement is logically false.

That's like saying the Bible isn't subjective because the text physically exists. Ergo, you have no idea what you're talking about, let alone do you have any idea what I'm talking about. Facts and objectivity are only half of human existence.

[Lombra]

Ah, you just have to try. I see. So, if I do like you and try, I'm certain I'll understand exactly what the designers were thinking when they wrote each rule of the game.

I'll tell you my intent in writing this. It's not the case that it's impossible to understand someone else enough to do something useful with the information. But it absolutely is the case that attacking someone else's argument as not RAW or not RAI is worthless when there are multiple interpretations and you don't know the intent.

And you don't know the developers' intent in every case, whether you think you do or not. You are not Crawford or Mearls.

So what you are saying is that your observation from which this thread originated brings nothing to the table and serves no purpose? Because nothing is worth something since anything may have an arbitrary value for everyone? It's not wrong I guess, but as you said, it's useless. I can arbitrairly decide that my whole life is an illusion, that everything that I am able to perceive is just a construct of my mind, and therefore decide to stop living, because I firmly believe that I live in a simulation, but in the end, no work has been produced by that reasoning (excuse the engineering metaphore), therefore it's useless and does not contribute towords a goal, then why even think, or argue about it?

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's probably a better idea to separate Truth from Usefulness. Sure, insisting on a particular interpretation as the one and only true way is low-value argumentation (because, at a minimum, we are missing the way to judge). Some interpretations are more useful than others--they provide clarity, aren't simply special pleading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading), they allow predictions for other related topics, they're more fun, they're more in line with the text, with what information is provided by the developers, etc.

[Regitnui]

That's like saying the Bible isn't subjective because the text physically exists. Ergo, you have no idea what you're talking about, let alone do you have any idea what I'm talking about. Facts and objectivity are only half of human existence.

I'm not discussing religion with someone who clearly has a closed mind regarding it, so I'll say this; what happens to your characters may be fictional, but it's not necessarily untrue, subjective or nonexistent. Any actions you take in a game become facts, whether mechanically or acted.

[Easy_Lee]

It's probably a better idea to separate Truth from Usefulness. Sure, insisting on a particular interpretation as the one and only true way is low-value argumentation (because, at a minimum, we are missing the way to judge). Some interpretations are more useful than others--they provide clarity, aren't simply special pleading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading), they allow predictions for other related topics, they're more fun, they're more in line with the text, with what information is provided by the developers, etc.

Exactly. And funnily enough, this is also the solution to postmodernism. Postmodernists are right that everything has infinite possible interpretations, but what they don't understand is that useful interpretations are finite. And usefulness depends upon your goal.

In simple terms, it's not useful to say a given interpretation of a rule is not RAI. Intent only matters if you're trying to play the game exactly as the developers intended, and I've shown that's impossible. You can get close enough to the intent to recognize the game as D&D, but it's not always clear whether Ruling A or Ruling B is actually closer to the intended way to play the game.

Both Crawford and Mearls are inconsistent with rulings, Mearls more often so. Why? Because they're humans and not machines, obviously. But a better question would be: why does anyone care?

The developers did state that "rulings, not rules" was one of the design goals. That's a fact, but what does that mean? It's subjective. But I think a useful interpretation is: the DM should do what he thinks is best for his table regardless of intent or others' rulings.

Therefore, we shouldn't put RAI, or any other interpretation of the rules, up on a pedestal.

[KorvinStarmast]

The US Supreme court spends much of its time dealing with RAI in the argument presented to it. RAI is a fact of life as soon as someone writes a rule. :smallcool:

[Easy_Lee]

The US Supreme court spends much of its time dealing with RAI in the argument presented to it. RAI is a fact of life as soon as someone writes a rule. :smallcool:

Actions are facts, reasons and motivations are subjective.

[Lombra]

If we presume that the objective of the game is having fun, and that the designer's objective as well is to design an enjoyable gaming experience, then RAI becomes RAF (Rules as Fun) which, given my premise, is RAU (Rules as Useful).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actions are facts, reasons and motivations are subjective.

But subjective doesn't mean meaningless. Especially where actions are concerned. For a legal example, not all false statements of fact are perjury. Here's the US Code's definition (one of them, anyway). Emphasis added.


Having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

You have to make an error of fact with the belief that the truth is different from your claim. If you make a mistake of fact, believing that it's the truth, then no perjury. If you say something that is actually true, but believe it to be a lie, you've committed perjury.

[Naerytar]

Actions are facts, reasons and motivations are subjective.

Reasons and motivations are also facts, it's just really hard to access that knowledge. That doesn't make it subjective.

[Easy_Lee]

Reasons and motivations are also facts, it's just really hard to access that knowledge. That doesn't make it subjective.

People don't fully understand their own motivations, let alone anyone else's. In legal terms, intent is something you have to infer from actions. At the end of the day, it's a guess. Often, we just assume that the outcome of people's actions was their intent, because you can't always get someone to say they intended to commit a crime.

But that's pretty far beside the point.

[smcmike]

What is the point, exactly? Your argument appears to be that since we cannot know the full intentions of the authors, we therefore should give no weight to their statements about the rules. I don’t really see how this follows.

[Vaz]

That's like saying the Bible isn't subjective because the text physically exists..

No it isn't wtf. You need better similes.

[Easy_Lee]

No it isn't wtf. You need better similes.

Provide an argument.

[pwykersotz]

Both Crawford and Mearls are inconsistent with rulings, Mearls more often so. Why? Because they're humans and not machines, obviously. But a better question would be: why does anyone care?

I care, and I assume some others do as well, because it's interesting. When a group of people come together and create a product like this, understanding what they were thinking, or even what they've changed their mind about since then showcases certain aspects of the system. As someone who uses that system, this is interesting insofar as I can examine it and see if it's useful to me and my table. The context of their opinions has a high likelyhood of being both relevant and interesting, considering they produced the product I use which I consider both relevant and interesting.

I know where you're coming from, it is supremely annoying to come up with an interesting idea and be told "that's not RAW" or "that's not RAI". I know, I don't care. I want to talk about the idea on its own merits. However, live by the sword and die by the sword. If your idea is a RAW or RAI exploit, then you're going to get criticized on that basis.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I care, and I assume some others do as well, because it's interesting. When a group of people come together and create a product like this, understanding what they were thinking, or even what they've changed their mind about since then showcases certain aspects of the system. As someone who uses that system, this is interesting insofar as I can examine it and see if it's useful to me and my table. The context of their opinions has a high likelyhood of being both relevant and interesting, considering they produced the product I use which I consider both relevant and interesting.


And understanding the assumptions behind a rule or the intended reading helps us to design other rules (homebrew, house-rules, rulings) that mesh well without conflicts. It also helps us evaluate other possible readings. Knowing this also allows us to avoid breaking the implied rules of the setting or system--those unspoken "that's too far" builds.

[Vaz]

Provide an argument.

I have done. Correct your simile to be appropriate te.

[DanyBallon]

It's impossible to play the game exactly as intended. This is because every rule in the game can be interpreted, by design, and the likelihood of getting your interpretations exactly right (here meaning exactly as the developers intended) is zero.

I will demonstrate.

For my argument, I will assume that there are a total of twenty rules that can be interpreted in two ways each. I will add five rules that have three interpretations. Finally, I will add just three rules with four interpretations.

Assuming there is only one correct interpretation, and all interpretations are equally possible, the number of possible combinations of interpretations exceeds Earth's population.

D&D 5e has a lot more than twenty-eight rules open to interpretation. Add to this optional rules, interpretations of optional rules, misread rules, and the monster that is the exact combination of classes and races your players have chosen.

Achieving RAI is impossible. You can't play D&D exactly as it was "meant" to be played. Even getting close would require seeking developer input on every rule.

But that's okay. The developers adopted a "rulings, not rules" approach to 5e, meaning no single interpretation is necessarily correct. It's firmly up to each DM to decide what's right for his table.

I don't think we should worry as much about RAI on these forums as we do.

It may have been said before, but RAI is quite easy to follow in 5e. As long as you don't try to play by RAW and accept that DM will have to interpret rules that are left vague on purpose, then you are playing the game as intended by the designers.
5e was designed to allow different groups of players and DM to interpret rules the way it fit better their style of play. Nobody is wrong, nor right, but as long as you group reach a common ground and everyone have fun, you play the game as intended by the designers.

I know such design is the worst option for internet discussions, but after all the game was designed to be played, not to be talked about :smallwink:

[Cybren]

Provide an argument.

The bible isn't a religion, it's a foundational text of several religions, but it isn't itself the religion. You can observe objective facts about a text, that is not the same as doing so for a religion, and anything more elaborate than that as an answer would violate forum rules.

[Easy_Lee]

If your idea is a RAW or RAI exploit, then you're going to get criticized on that basis.

Exploit, as it applies specifically to games, means to do something not intended. As per my first post, the rulings not rules mentality, the fact that every campaign is different, and the fact that the designers themselves are inconsistent, it's impossible to call something in 5e an exploit.

The reality is that it either is or isn't allowed by the DM. Thus it's not even useful to think of something as intended, "exploitive" or otherwise. Thus, we don't get to call someone's interpretation an exploit.


The bible isn't a religion, it's a foundational text of several religions, but it isn't itself the religion. You can observe objective facts about a text, that is not the same as doing so for a religion, and anything more elaborate than that as an answer would violate forum rules.

The PHB is a text but is not a campaign by itself. You can observe objective facts about the words in the text, but that's not the same as applying them to player actions in a campaign.

I'm asking you all to be humble about your assertions regarding how the game is either meant to be played or should be played. No subjective opinion applies to every campaign, and what the developers would do in a given situation and campaign is generally unknowable.

[Cybren]

The PHB is a text but is not a campaign by itself. You can observe objective facts about the words in the text, but that's not the same as applying them to player actions in a campaign.

I'm asking you all to be humble about your assertions regarding how the game is either meant to be played or should be played. No subjective opinion applies to every campaign, and what the developers would do in a given situation and campaign is generally unknowable.

That's not material to the argument your simile was making.

[gooddragon1]

Reminded me of something I wrote a long while back.

The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization

1. Not everything needs to be stated explicitly in the rules; some things just are.
A human doesn't have a hundred and fifty-seven arms, even though the rules don't explicitly say that he doesn't. A character doesn't continue running around after he dies, even though the rules don't explicitly list any negative effects for death. If the designers spelled out every single thing explicitly...even the glaringly obvious...the core rulebooks would be larger than the Encyclopedia Brittannica, and would likely cost as much as a Ferrari.

2. "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.
The second commandment is like unto the first. There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry. This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability.

3. RAW is a myth.
This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to. This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game. Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.
This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial. Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.

4. Common sense is not a bad thing.
The rules were designed to be read with common sense. Yes, common sense will vary from person to person, but there has to be some basic level at which we agree on core assumptions, or the game is meaningless. If we have one interpretation of the rules where two levels of a prestige class give you infinite caster level, and another interpretation where two levels of that same prestige class give you two caster levels, then common sense tells us that the latter interpretation is the correct one. If a character reaches negative ten hit points and dies, common sense tells us that he doesn't spring back to his feet and continue fighting unimpeded.

5. Intent matters.
I know, I know..."Blasphemy! No man may know the intent of the Most Holy Designers!" Except that, in some cases, we can. In some cases, the intent is glaringly, painfully obvious. In other cases, the intent has been clarified by various WotC sources, such as CustServ. It makes sense to take these sources at their word, people. They work with the folks who design the game, they have access to them. If a conflict comes up, then it can be resolved, but I can't help but notice that for all the talk about how CustServ never gives the same answer twice, they've been remarkably consistent of late. It's one thing to say "This rule is vaguely worded, and we don't know the intent." It's another thing to say, "The rule is vaguely worded, and therefore I can ignore the intent." The first is sensible caution; the second is rules lawyering. When an ambiguity has been clarified, that should be the end of it.

6. Mistakes happen.
Everybody's human. You're human; I'm human; the folks at WotC are human. Sometimes, humans make mistakes. That shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to break the game. Take the Vigilante from Complete Adventurer, for instance. Anyone out there seriously believe that his rather abrupt jump from 1 third level spell at level 6 to 20 at level 7 is NOT a mistake? There are two ways to deal with a mistake like this: a sensible way, and a silly way. The sensible way: "Hmm. There's a column for fourth level spells with no numbers in it, and a column for third level with numbers that can't be right in it. Clearly, this was a typesetting error, and the second digit in the third level spells column is supposed to be in the fourth level spells column." The silly way: "Rules are rules! The rulebook says 20 third level spells at seventh level! If you do it any other way, you're houseruling! I'm gonna make some GREAT builds based on this rule!" Basing a build on an obvious mistake isn't optimizing; it's silly.

7. Simple Is Good.
There are a LOT of WotC sourcebooks out there. I did a rough estimate on the value of my collection just of hardcover rulebooks; it cost more than my car. Not everyone has that kind of cash to spend on this hobby. Not only that--a lot of people simply don't have the time to commit several thousand pages of rules, hundreds upon hundreds of prestige classes, and thousands of feats to memory. So: builds which are simple are good. There's nothing WRONG with a build that incorporates eight different prestige classes from seven different sources, and then tosses in feats from five more...but that build is going to be useful only to the people who have those sources, whereas the Druid 20 build that doesn't go outside of Core is useful to everybody. Sometimes, simplicity is worth more than raw power.

8. Tricking the DM is Bad.
We see a lot of "Help me trick my DM!" or "Help me make my DM cry!" requests on these boards. We see builds that are designed to look innocuous while at the same time being devastating to campaign balance. The idea is to lull the DM into allowing the character, then unleash its full power. Bad idea. Bad, BAD idea. At all times, two things should be borne in mind about the DM. One: he's in charge. If you try to trick him, he's totally within his rights to toss your character or YOU out of the game. Two: he's your friend. Trying to deceive your friends is bad. Be honest with your DM about what you want to do. If he says "No," deal with it. That's part of a DM's job. If you don't think he's going to say "Yes" to something, then trying to sneak it into the game on the sly is a sure way to make him mad.

9. Respect the parameters of the request.
This used to be a given, but people have been backsliding a lot lately. Someone comes on and says, "Hey, I'd like to play a Bard 4/Cleric 4. Can anyone help me optimize this? He immediately gets responses which boil down to, "Only an idiot would play that! You should be playing Pun-Pun, he's MUCH more powerful!" Sometimes they're more nicely phrased than this, other times they're not. The point is: people aren't offering him suggestions on how to make his character of choice better. They're telling him that he's "wrong" for playing that character, and that he should be playing a different character. The same goes for threads in which the poster explains the DM's house rules and restrictions at the beginning of the thread. More often than not, if these restrictions amount to more than "No infinite power at first level," someone will respond with the oh-so-helpful suggestion "Your DM sucks. Quit his game and never talk to him again."
I only wish that were hyperbole. It's word-for-word from a thread a while back. Optimization is about working within the rules to greatest effect. ANYONE can optimize in an environment with no restrictions. It takes skill to optimize where options are limited. Threads like these should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that skill...not belittle the poster or the DM.

10. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
I remember bounding onto the boards many moons ago, shortly after the first release of the Persistent Spell feat, to declare that I had discovered (ta da!) the UNBEATABLE COMBO. Since Time Stop was a Personal effect spell, it could be Persisted! (Oooh, aaah!) I couldn't imagine why nobody had thought of this before. Of course, as it turned out, LOTS of people had thought of this before. Within about five minutes, I was directed to a ruling that said, "You can't do it." I was disappointed, sure...but I accepted it and moved on. There are a LOT of folks here with a lot of knowledge of the rules. Some of 'em are a little scary. They love nothing better than to go over a new rulebook with a fine-toothed comb looking for hidden gems. Sometimes, a genuinely overlooked concept will turn up. The recent builds using Sanctum Spell are a good example. The feat's been around for a while, but nobody really looked at what could be done with it.
More often, though, if a seeming "rules loophole" is being ignored by the boards, it's because it's been hashed out in the past and found not to work. Perhaps there's something elsewhere in the rules that nullifies it; perhaps there was a clarification. Very occasionally, there's simply a board-wide agreement that the rule is wrong...as with the recent FAQ claiming that Polymorph allowed the use of templated forms. If it turns out that your discovery falls into this category, the best thing to do is accept it and move on. Maybe the next one won't.

So: there they are. Make of them what you will.

An ancient figure from legend stirs...

Maybe instead of RAU, RAC (Rules as Common). As suggested earlier, it's what is clearly the most common use, but in cases where there is no common use it couldn't be applied. It also has the disclaimer that it's largely still subjective.

EDIT: by the way caelic, what is the build you are referring to in rule 7 with all the splat? Sounds like fun.

[Easy_Lee]

An ancient figure from legend stirs...

Maybe instead of RAU, RAC (Rules as Common). As suggested earlier, it's what is clearly the most common use, but in cases where there is no common use it couldn't be applied. It also has the disclaimer that it's largely still subjective.

I think it might be better to say something like, "here's what the text says and I would or would not allow X because Y." Even establishing RAC in 5e would be difficult without a massive survey for every major rule.

For instance, one of the rules in the text is: if you cast a spell with a bonus action, you may not use your action to cast a non-cantrip on the same turn. I've never seen that rule in play, but I've heard that some follow it. We might suspect this one is easy to interpret, but how do we know what proportion of tables actually use it? If your table doesn't use that rule, it certainly doesn't matter to you.

[pwykersotz]

Exploit, as it applies specifically to games, means to do something not intended. As per my first post, the rulings not rules mentality, the fact that every campaign is different, and the fact that the designers themselves are inconsistent, it's impossible to call something in 5e an exploit.

The reality is that it either is or isn't allowed by the DM. Thus it's not even useful to think of something as intended, "exploitive" or otherwise. Thus, we don't get to call someone's interpretation an exploit.

I see you've bristled against the term Exploit like I bristle against the term RAW. I can understand that, I suppose. But that doesn't make the terms useless as you imply. That just means they are often loaded. I did not mean to load the term, I apologize.

What I was saying is different. When you try to make a build that is justified based on either the rules as written or what the designers have said in some confirmable way, when you take those words and extrapolate them or build upon them to do something else, you can be criticized on the grounds of those original words. These are often shorthanded as "that's against RAW" or "that's against RAI".

[Cybren]

I think it might be better to say something like, "here's what the text says and I would or would not allow X because Y." Even establishing RAC in 5e would be difficult without a massive survey for every major rule.

For instance, one of the rules in the text is: if you cast a spell with a bonus action, you may not use your action to cast a non-cantrip on the same turn. I've never seen that rule in play, but I've heard that some follow it. We might suspect this one is easy to interpret, but how do we know what proportion of tables actually use it? If your table doesn't use that rule, it certainly doesn't matter to you.

I think the rules, especially in the PHB, should have more transparency behind designer intent on particular esoteric or corner-case situations. If they don't want great weapon fighting to work with paladins because that's rolling too many dice... say so in the book, let people have an idea of why they might want to change a rule and how it would effect their game. Likewise the bonus action thing is meant to keep the burst- damage a caster could access within certain parameters, so DMs might be more willing to bend that rule for things like using it to cast two non-damaging spells in a turn. There's a counter-argument that that would inflate page counts but I don't know that that's entirely true, and there's certainly a good number of 'wasted' pages in the PHB (like the halfling art...)