Another JC tweet about rules philosophy

[PhoenixPhyre]

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1056960550146461700


The little details in D&D’s rules are only as important as your group decides. If you love all the nuances, glory in them! If you like to play fast and loose with the rules, glory in that!

D&D’s rules are tools. Each D&D group decides how to use them to build its fun. #DnD

I'm going to take this as explicit validation of my "rules are a toolkit" mentality.

"RAW" only matters if the group has chosen to be bound by it. The text makes a nice starting point for discussion, but it's not conclusive in any direction.

This means (and JC goes on to say in a later tweet) that his rules tweets are designed to clarify what the text says (or was intended to mean) for those that care. They're not binding (nor can they be) on anyone unless playing in a setting that has decided to make them binding.

[Man_Over_Game]

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1056960550146461700



I'm going to take this as explicit validation of my "rules are a toolkit" mentality.

"RAW" only matters if the group has chosen to be bound by it. The text makes a nice starting point for discussion, but it's not conclusive in any direction.

This means (and JC goes on to say in a later tweet) that his rules tweets are designed to clarify what the text says (or was intended to mean) for those that care. They're not binding (nor can they be) on anyone unless playing in a setting that has decided to make them binding.

They are binding in Adventure League, where a lot of players first get their feet wet.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They are binding in Adventure League, where a lot of players first get their feet wet.

Technically, his tweets aren't even binding there. The Adventure League documentation lists specifically which interpretations are binding (and it isn't every one). Basically the Basic Rules are binding, nothing else.

[Millstone85]

Yes, rules only matter if they are followed.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm surprised people need to be told this, not like anyone can enforce the rules for you.

[Mr.Spastic]

I think that adherence to the rules is ultimately up to the DM. Players may want to play fast and loose with the rules but it comes down to the DMs say. I personally run games with very strict adherence to the RAW and they are always a fun time. I also think that people tend to antagonize rules too much in general. I like the limitations put in place by some of the rules. They make my games smoother, rather than flipping through a packet of house rules.

[DMThac0]

I'm surprised people need to be told this, not like anyone can enforce the rules for you.

I was informed by another poster here that because I don't adhere to the rules and play almost completely homebrew, I don't play D&D (I had told them that I've never read the DMG/PHB in their entirety). Some people need this type of clarification to reduce the amount of elitist attitude or relax the black/white view on rules when used in a game.

[Mr.Spastic]

I'm surprised people need to be told this, not like anyone can enforce the rules for you.

The DM could if they wanted to.

[Foxhound438]

They are binding in Adventure League, where a lot of players first get their feet wet.


Technically, his tweets aren't even binding there. The Adventure League documentation lists specifically which interpretations are binding (and it isn't every one). Basically the Basic Rules are binding, nothing else.

I think he means that the rules as they are in the book are binding, which is true (ish). I think there's more flex in it than the average AL DM will give, considering the WotC police aren't going to show up at your local game store and shoot someone for switching out a cantrip that turned out to be useless rather than a levelled spell for their sorcerer. So long as you aren't planning to jump between tables at conventions every week, working out some house rules is probably fine.

[Mr.Spastic]

To not antagonize people with my earlier post. I have nothing wrong with people homebrewing rules for their own games. You do you, my groups just happen to like the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think he means that the rules as they are in the book are binding, which is true (ish). I think there's more flex in it than the average AL DM will give, considering the WotC police aren't going to show up at your local game store and shoot someone for switching out a cantrip that turned out to be useless rather than a levelled spell for their sorcerer. So long as you aren't planning to jump between tables at conventions every week, working out some house rules is probably fine.

I was specifically referring to the rules tweets when I said they're not binding on anyone.

AL has chosen to restrict DM authority in other ways. That's fine--it's effectively a meta-table-level rule-set. And by joining an AL game you're agreeing to be bound by their chosen set of rules (which follow close but are not identical to the text). Even AL doesn't play by RAW--the treasure distribution system, for one, is quite different.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The DM could if they wanted to.

Yes, and this tweet is made in reference to DM's. As a DM, I don't need to be told that I can ignore and enforce what rules I want because it says as much in the DMG already. Likewise I can't enforce the rules for another DM.

That's why it's called a "Guide".

[Mr.Spastic]

Yes, and this tweet is made in reference to DM's. As a DM, I don't need to be told that I can ignore and enforce what rules I want because it says as much in the DMG already. Likewise I can't enforce the rules for another DM.

That's why it's called a "Guide".

I was being facetious.

[Mikal]

Well yes, on a table by table basis the rules are a toolkit. However, when discussing rules and interpretations between different tables/parties, a common ground is needed, thus RAW.

ANY rule can changed by a DM, just like ANY player can choose to leave if they feel a rule or rules change is/are too onerous/limiting/just dumb.

As such, either we play magic tea party and discussion of any rules interpretation is null and void because we don't follow RAW even in such discussions, or we use RAW as the common ground when discussing any rules and interpretations of such.

[Keravath]

I would hope that most of not all folks on a D&D 5e forum would know that in a home game the DM is completely free to change things up as they see fit. JCs tweets are as relevant or irrelevant as an individual DM decides they might be.

However, it is important for the DM (and the players) to know that rules are important. Rules provide the structure for the game, defining what individuals can reasonably do and not do with certain in game tools. The main reason for session 0 for many campaigns is to make sure that the DM and the players are on the same page in terms of how the rules of the game will work for this particular campaign. The DM is pretty much free to use any variant set of rules they prefer ... however, the DM changing the rules in the midst of a campaign is generally not.

So although there is no binding ruling by anyone that can be forced to apply to how a DM chooses to run their game, the DM has a responsibility to the players to use an even hand and use the rules that he has informed the players will be in effect.

---

The exception to this is AL. Adventurer's league attempts to run to the rules as written in the rulebook. If there is ambiguity in interpreting something, the DM is free to choose during the game how to apply it. AL DMs are completely free to ignore any input from Sage Advice or tweets by JC if they choose when making these calls. However, there are a few rulings in the ALFAQ and the rules set that they have to apply is fairly well defined. An AL DM can not add house rules or make up their own rules ... no critical misses, no changes to races/classes/spells which they might find to be unbalancing, no flanking ... and so on.

AL FAQ:
"Sage Advice (SA) is a great barometer for ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. Whether or not your DM chooses to utilize SA for rules adjudication is at their discretion; as always, the DM remains the final arbiter of rule disputes."

"The only optional or variant rules available for use are:
• Variant: Customizing Ability Scores (PHB)
• Variant Human Traits (PHB)
• Half-Elf Variants (SCAG)
• Option: Human Languages (SCAG)
• Tiefling Variants (SCAG)
• Variant: Playing on a Grid (PBR)
• Variant: Skills with Different Abilities (PHB)
Without specific campaign documentation, any other variant or optional rules, such as Variant: Quasit Familiar (MM) are not available for use."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well yes, on a table by table basis the rules are a toolkit. However, when discussing rules and interpretations between different tables/parties, a common ground is needed, thus RAW.

ANY rule can changed by a DM, just like ANY player can choose to leave if they feel a rule or rules change is/are too onerous/limiting/just dumb.

As such, either we play magic tea party and discussion of any rules interpretation is null and void because we don't follow RAW even in such discussions, or we use RAW as the common ground when discussing any rules and interpretations of such.

No. A table choosing a set of rules isn't "changing the rules" at all. They're starting with the same defaults (the text) and making their own rules from there.

There is no "rules" from which to deviate. There are a set of suggested settings, but I can't tell you you're playing wrong as long as you're doing what your group has decided are the rules. I can say what the (likely) consequences of choosing a non-default setting for a particular element may be. Or I can give my opinion on whether I'd like that non-default setting, but I can't tell you what the rules for your table are or should be. I can't tell you you're playing wrong as long as you're using an interpretation you've chosen. Yes, that makes "rules" discussions rather pointless in the main. But I'm not worried about that.

There is no RAW as binding thing. There is no RAW as a thing. There are interpretations on all sides. "RAW" as discussed on these forums is really a particularly legalistic and distorted interpretation for the express purpose of rules lawyering. It's a cancer on discussions.

Discuss the text. If interesting, discuss how that text is interpreted. But don't privilege one particular interpretation over another by calling it "RAW".

[Mikal]

No. A table choosing a set of rules isn't "changing the rules" at all. They're starting with the same defaults (the text) and making their own rules from there.


change
/CHānj/Submit
verb
1.
make or become different.
"a proposal to change the law"
2.
take or use another instead of.
"she decided to change her name"
noun
1.
the act or instance of making or becoming different.
"the change from a nomadic to an agricultural society"


What part of the above definition does not fit, exactly? You have a set of rules as written (A), you modify those to fit your table (B). That's called change.


There is no "rules" from which to deviate.

That's nice. You're wrong, from a factual standpoint, but you're entitled to your opinion.


rule
/ro͞ol/Submit
noun
plural noun: rules; noun: Rules
1.
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
"the rules of the game were understood"
synonyms: regulation, ruling, directive, order, act, law, statute, edict, canon, mandate, command, dictate, decree, fiat, injunction, commandment, stipulation, requirement, guideline, direction; formalordinancep

What part of the above does not fit in relation to the PHB/DMG?


There is no RAW as binding thing. There is no RAW as a thing. There are interpretations on all sides. "RAW" as discussed on these forums is really a particularly legalistic and distorted interpretation for the express purpose of rules lawyering. It's a cancer on discussions.

You're entitled to your opinion. That being said... why are you involved with such threads? It seems that your personal viewpoint is so skewed against it that you're just wasting your time and others. Just curious.


Discuss the text. If interesting, discuss how that text is interpreted. But don't privilege one particular interpretation over another by calling it "RAW".

Got it. You believe in magic tea party. I'll make sure to not pay attention to anything you say on further rules discussions since your viewpoint is skewed in such a way that there can be no actual baseline of discussion.

[Pex]

In other words, see my signature.
:smallsigh:

[Mikal]

In other words, see my signature.
:smallsigh:

Which, honestly, is one of its greatest weaknesses while simultaneously being a strength. Huzzah paradox!

[Mr.Spastic]

There are interpretations on all sides. "RAW" as discussed on these forums is really a particularly legalistic and distorted interpretation for the express purpose of rules lawyering. It's a cancer on discussions.

RAW is not useless in discussions of rules and is not always used for rules lawyers. RAW is used to establish a baseline when there hasn't been any interpretation by people who made the game. RAW allows for a universal interpretation by what the text actually says.

Most people I know only use RAW in an argument because somebody read something wrong and it resulted in them abusing a loop hole that didn't exist. RAW rules add balance to the game and keep it stable.

Now, if you don't use the RAW rules, that's fine. You can do what you want. But don't act like they are some arbitrary shackles to the game. They literally are the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In other words, see my signature.
:smallsigh:

As usual, no. The rules matter. But "rules" and "printed text as interpreted by self-interested forum goers" are not the same thing at all. In any open-ended game, the printed text does not nor cannot define the game. Just like language, the rules are only truly defined at any individual table. While there may be similarities between the rulesets used at different tables, "the rules" include all the rulings, "houserules", variant rules, interpretations, and other things that might arise. "The rules" are the sum total of how a table (not just a DM) have decided to play the game. None of it is privileged over others.

As a rule of thumb, any discussion on a forum about "the rules say" or "But by RAW" is pointless. If a table chooses to act in a certain way, no power on earth can tell them that they're "playing wrong". They are the sole judges of what the rules are.

Stating what the default or intended interpretation of the text might be can be useful as persuasive or informative evidence, but it's not conclusive. It can help people understand that they intended to do X but had been reading it as Y. At that point they can choose to either keep with X (a valid choice) or go with Y (also a valid choice) or change to interpretation Z1...Z99 (also valid choices).

This also means that at the table, someone who goes against the consensus is wrong. At that table. Arguing about rules, weaponizing rules, defending your (fun-harming) behavior by reference to rules are all excluded as valid reasons. The only binding consideration should be "does this interpretation help the group have more fun than others?" Every other thing (text, JC tweets, etc) are all informative at best.

@Mr.Spastic: "They literally are the game." I disagree, as do the rules designers. They've specifically, explicitly said that the printed text is not the game. It does not define what is possible, it only sets a default language for further discussion. And forum RAW is not the printed text. It's one particular, self-interested reading of the text that has no particular privilege. Understanding this is critical. Accusations of "not following RAW" are merely saying "I don't like that set of rules." Nothing more, nothing less. They're discussions of taste, not objective fact.

[Unoriginal]

I'm surprised people need to be told this, not like anyone can enforce the rules for you.

Back in the 3.5 era, "the rules control the game, not the players or the DM" was a common sentiment.

To the point that people even nowadays complain it is not the case in 5e.

[Mikal]

Stuff.

So... Magical Tea Party. To which I reply why play 5e or participate in 5e if you disregard the framework 5e is written in as not authoritative in any way, shape or form? Just free form it if you find rules to be too shackling, and someone disagreeing with the group to be having the wrong kind of fun. I mean, feel free to browbeat the dissenter as much as you want, but 5e, like most games, is designed around a framework of rules.

[Mr.Spastic]

I would also have to disagree with that.(Edit: this was referring to an earlier post)W hile calling the rules "the game" is not accurate and I will acknowledge that. RAW is not an interpretation to suit peoples needs. It is a good baseline for online discussions as you can't expect every groups interpretations to line up. What I meant was that having a baseline that everybody should be able to agree on when discussing interpretations and house rule tweaks can be very helpful.

[DMThac0]

So... Magical Tea Party. To which I reply why play 5e or participate in 5e if you disregard the framework 5e is written in as not authoritative in any way, shape or form? Just free form it if you find rules to be too shackling, and someone disagreeing with the group to be having the wrong kind of fun. I mean, feel free to browbeat the dissenter as much as you want, but 5e, like most games, is designed around a framework of rules.

If I might try an analogy: Legos

When you buy a set of legos you are given a collection of pieces which, if you follow the directions given, will build a specific end result. It is learned, though using that design plan, that you can use those pieces in particular ways, and there are ways that you cannot use those pieces.

Is it wrong, improper, and/or not acceptable to use those pieces to build something different? Is it wrong, improper, and/or not acceptable to piece the Legos together in a way that is not implied by the design of the piece? Does that no longer make it Legos? Or, is it simply using creative liberties to use the pieces to make something you find more interesting, in a way you find more interesting?

---

The design plan is the DMG and PHB, the pieces are the rules presented in the books. Those rules can be used in a myriad of ways, however there are ways that those rules cannot be used as well.

I would argue that RAW is best seen as understanding that you should use the pieces in a particular manner, but it is not an absolute. Just as with the lego analogy; you can spin the rules on their head and piece them together and still fall within the purview that is D&D.

[Mr.Spastic]

I guess it would help my case to say that I don't mind people who don't follow RAW. I just personally prefer using RAW and think that they should be used in online discussions. If your not following the RAW or creating your own rules. I just think that should be saved for the Homebrew section of the forum. Or am I wrong in assuming that this forum is mainly for understanding the guidelines that are already in place?

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I might try an analogy: Legos

When you buy a set of legos you are given a collection of pieces which, if you follow the directions given, will build a specific end result. It is learned, though using that design plan, that you can use those pieces in particular ways, and there are ways that you cannot use those pieces.

Is it wrong, improper, and/or not acceptable to use those pieces to build something different? Is it wrong, improper, and/or not acceptable to piece the Legos together in a way that is not implied by the design of the piece? Does that no longer make it Legos? Or, is it simply using creative liberties to use the pieces to make something you find more interesting, in a way you find more interesting?

---

The design plan is the DMG and PHB, the pieces are the rules presented in the books. Those rules can be used in a myriad of ways, however there are ways that those rules cannot be used as well.

I would argue that RAW is best seen as understanding that you should use the pieces in a particular manner, but it is not an absolute. Just as with the lego analogy; you can spin the rules on their head and piece them together without an issue and still fall within the purview that is D&D.

The text does not define the game, anymore than a set of lengths of wood, saws, nails, and glue define the house that's being built.

Every table has their own set of tools and pieces. The PHB etc. give a starting set that are claimed to work together well for a range of buildings. But they don't claim that those are the only or even the best equipment for any particular building. Merely a good starting point for a particular set of buildings that the developers imagined. Everybody brings their own tools and materials to the job site.

5e is not a pre-fab, factory-produced game. It's a lumber yard that provides free tools.

@Mr.Spastic:

I guess it would help my case to say that I don't mind people who don't follow RAW. I just personally prefer using RAW and think that they should be used in online discussions. If your not following the RAW or creating your own rules. I just think that should be saved for the Homebrew section of the forum. Or am I wrong in assuming that this forum is mainly for understanding the guidelines that are already in place?

Your problem is in thinking that RAW is an actual thing that has independent meaning. That's something the designers have said is false. The following things exist:

* The printed text of various books.
* Various interpretations of said text (none inherently privileged over another).
* Experiences in playing the game under varied rules.
* Extrapolations based on experiences.

RAW is not merely the text--it's a particular interpretation of the text. One that privileges certain things that it claims to extract from the text while ignoring other things. It has no intrinsic validity--it only has persuasive value. Homebrew content is just as much part of "the rules" as is the printed text. Calling something a "houserule" is a way of saying that it's of lesser importance. Which is not part of the text itself--the text privileges "houserules" exactly the same as it does itself.

[Millstone85]

Remember that Jeremy Crawford is the same guy who had this wonderful exchange (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/806978175347478528):

Crawford: Magic missile isn't an attack.
Dodger: yes it is, and rules lawyers are never welcome in my games.
C: By rule, magic missile doesn't involve an attack, but as DM, you're empowered to ignore/change rules.
D: "casts Magic Missile at you, they are attacking. It does damage & isn't friendly."
C: Again, you are welcome to ignore the rules. That is the prerogative of the DM.
D: Again, I'm not ignoring the rules. Those aren't the rules. Those are things written in 5e books.
C: My tweets are about the official rules of 5E. Whatever rules you're using, I hope you're having fun.

[Unoriginal]

Remember that Jeremy Crawford is the same guy who had this wonderful exchange (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/806978175347478528):

Contesting that there are official rules is denying what's in front of everyone who read the books. There are rules, which are subject to interpretation like any piece of communicated idea between individuals, and you're free to change them if you wish. There are also suggestions.

In the case of Magic Missile, it is not an attack because the game does not treat it as an attack. Like Crawford said, if you wish to treat it as an attack, you can, but as default the game doesn't.

One of the most wtf exchanges I've seen with Crawford was when someone insisted that Crawford was wrong and vampires were humanoids because they were human-shaped, rather than the in-game monster category Crawford was talking about.

[KorvinStarmast]

To not antagonize people with my earlier post. I have nothing wrong with people homebrewing rules for their own games. You do you, my groups just happen to like the rules. Given the number of "huh, what?" things in the rules, I hope that you all like rulings as well. For two reasons: you often need them, and that's a core game phisolophy pillar per the devs going back to before release of this edition.

As such, either we play magic tea party and discussion of any rules interpretation is null and void because we don't follow RAW even in such discussions, or we use RAW as the common ground when discussing any rules and interpretations of such. False dichotomy is false. In other news, water is wet.

In other words, see my signature.
:smallsigh: Why would anyone want to look at cynical, inaccurate hyperbole? You make a lot of great posts and points, Pex. That isn't one of them.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Remember that Jeremy Crawford is the same guy who had this wonderful exchange (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/806978175347478528):

He's not wrong, casting a spell is a distinctly separate action and the spells that are considered an attack say so inside of their text. The Making an Attack rules also specify that only spells that call for an attack roll are considered an attack. It also lines up with this new tweet, where he reminds people that if they disagree with the intent behind the rules (or even how they're written, regardless of whether that is ambiguous or not) they're free to ignore them.

If you brought this up to remind us that JC has advocated for running your game how you like for a very long time, you've succeeded.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Contesting that there are official rules is denying what's in front of everyone who read the books. There are rules, which are subject to interpretation like any piece of communicated idea between individuals, and you're free to change them if you wish. There are also suggestions.

In the case of Magic Missile, it is not an attack because the game does not treat it as an attack. Like Crawford said, if you wish to treat it as an attack, you can, but as default the game doesn't.

One of the most wtf exchanges I've seen with Crawford was when someone insisted that Crawford was wrong and vampires were humanoids because they were human-shaped, rather than the in-game monster category Crawford was talking about.

I wish we had used different words other than "rules" for these things.

1) There is a definition of "attack" in the text that applies to those things in the text.
2) The definition of "Attack" as used in the text does not include MM
3) Therefore, MM is not an "attack" as used in the text.
4) Tables can use whatever definition they want (of anything).

So far, there's no serious disagreement. The issue comes in when you call these things "rules". That makes them sound like they're binding things that, if not followed, give rise to "playing it wrong" or "cheating" accusations. Instead, there is merely the text and its internal assumptions and the rules as played (which may or may not incorporate the text and its assumptions).

[Unoriginal]

I wish we had used different words other than "rules" for these things.

1) There is a definition of "attack" in the text that applies to those things in the text.
2) The definition of "Attack" as used in the text does not include MM
3) Therefore, MM is not an "attack" as used in the text.
4) Tables can use whatever definition they want (of anything).

So far, there's no serious disagreement. The issue comes in when you call these things "rules". That makes them sound like they're binding things that, if not followed, give rise to "playing it wrong" or "cheating" accusations. Instead, there is merely the text and its internal assumptions and the rules as played (which may or may not incorporate the text and its assumptions).

It's not the fault of the word "rules" that people assume that. It's the "not playing by the standard rules = wrong" assumption by itself that is incorrect.

We shouldn't be afraid to call rules rules because some people react to it with incorrect assumptions, nor should we be afraid of changing the rules if we want to.

[Millstone85]

If you brought this up to remind us that JC has advocated for running your game how you like for a very long time, you've succeeded.I brought this up as a reminder that while 5e is house-rule friendly, there are indeed such things as RAW, RAI and house rules in the eyes of the game designers.

[R.Shackleford]

I was informed by another poster here that because I don't adhere to the rules and play almost completely homebrew, I don't play D&D (I had told them that I've never read the DMG/PHB in their entirety). Some people need this type of clarification to reduce the amount of elitist attitude or relax the black/white view on rules when used in a game.

Well, blernsball isn't baseball. Doesn't mean blernsball is better or worse than baseball.

So it isn't about elitism but about the fact that you just aren't using the same ruleset. If I went to a 5e game and everyone was playing 4e... I would say that I'm playing 4e.

You play a homebrew game based loosely on the rules of 5e, I don't see how that's a bad thing or why you would want to defend yourself by saying you play 5e D&D. Homebrew systems are hard to keep together after all.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not the fault of the word "rules" that people assume that. It's the "not playing by the standard rules = wrong" assumption by itself that is incorrect.

We shouldn't be afraid to call rules rules because some people react to it with incorrect assumptions, nor should we be afraid of changing the rules if we want to.
The RAP (rules as published, which is to me books + errata) covers about 90% of what you'll encounter at the table; Sage Advice probably covers another 5-10%-, so the average DM only needs to add a little bit to complete the package.

We play this neat game on the internet where we dive into the small percentage points and make hay with it, or make a hash of it.

[Beleriphon]

I was informed by another poster here that because I don't adhere to the rules and play almost completely homebrew, I don't play D&D (I had told them that I've never read the DMG/PHB in their entirety). Some people need this type of clarification to reduce the amount of elitist attitude or relax the black/white view on rules when used in a game.

For playing at home sure, but when discussing the rules with a group of people RAW tends to come up because its the only common ground we all have.

As an analogy: If you play baseball as a loose league, with vaguely defined boundaries, but still use three bases, something for home plate, with two teams taking turns its still baseball for the most part. Anybody familiar with he game can pick up and play with you. If you saying you're playing baseball, but have six bases, you hit a beachball with an air cannon, and outs are determined by a sword fight then you aren't really playing baseball and nobody that understands baseball can play. I imagine you are much more of the first and a whole lot less of the latter though if you've at least read most of the books most of the way through.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's not the fault of the word "rules" that people assume that. It's the "not playing by the standard rules = wrong" assumption by itself that is incorrect.

We shouldn't be afraid to call rules rules because some people react to it with incorrect assumptions, nor should we be afraid of changing the rules if we want to.

But the real rules aren't found in the books at all. What's printed there isn't rule in the true sense at all. True rules are binding, the text isn't. Those are suggested rules, but they're only actual rules once ratified (by use if nothing else) at a particular table.

They're like abstract classes in computer science--they need a concrete implementation to actually be able to instantiate.

So calling the text "rules" invests too much "sacredness" (for lack of a better word) in them. It builds in a resistance to change that is unwarranted. But for historical reasons that's the word we use, so we're a bit stuck.

Edit: I put exactly zero value in "being able to discuss things on forums easily." That neither helps me play the game better nor helps me understand where I'm going. And the terms "RAW", "houserules", etc don't really serve that purpose anyway.

There's 90% of the game where everyone agrees on how to play.
There's 9.9999999% of the game where there are many valid interpretations, none of which are better or worse in some absolute fashion. This part is entirely taste.
The rest are the actually unclear or ill-defined things.

Every "Is this RAW" discussion I've seen has been either
* Malicious loophole hunting for the purpose of power-mongering/solving OOC problems with IC solutions.
* Unwillingness to actually read the text.

[Unoriginal]

Really, "ask your DM, but this is what the book/the errata/the Sage Advice says, (and here's an alternative you could use)" is probably the sanest answer you could give on this forum when people have a rule question.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I brought this up as a reminder that while 5e is house-rule friendly, there are indeed such things as RAW, RAI and house rules in the eyes of the game designers.

Well as open as they have been about the rules being guidelines, they wouldn't be very good designers if they hadn't built the game around a baseline set of rules that they considered important. It makes sense that they would build it around those foundations and then give people permission to freely ignore or expand on them.

I apologize if my comment seemed accusatory, I didn't mean for it to be.

[DMThac0]

You play a homebrew game based loosely on the rules of 5e, I don't see how that's a bad thing or why you would want to defend yourself by saying you play 5e D&D. Homebrew systems are hard to keep together after all.

Huh? I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to get at here.

If I'm using a rules set, then I'm playing that game. If I adjust the rules slightly, that makes it homebrew. If I adjust the rules drastically, that makes it homebrew. If I use optional rules, that makes it homebrew. If I change lore, that makes it homebrew. The assumption that changing something about the RAW equates to you are not playing D&D is rather absurd.

As well, this "hard to keep together" homebrew has been in play for 3 years now.

[Keravath]

Rules as Written gives a common basis for discussion and a common starting point for folks when playing the game (both players and DMs). Individual tables are free to deviate but there is very little point in discussing what different DMs choose to do at different tables since that is "home brew" and DMs can pretty much run their own games however they like.

On the other hand, if someone is trying to understand what the guidelines or rules are trying to say about a particular aspect of the interaction then discussing the "rules" can be worthwhile since the common underpinings of the guidelines or rules for D&D are in the books.

How many reactions can I have in a turn? 1
Does an opportunity attack use my reaction? Usually
When can I take an opportunity attack? When a creature leaves your reach.
Do I need to take the Attack action in order to get a bonus action attack using two weapon fighting? Yes

These are all part of the "rules" or guidelines of D&D 5e. Any DM is allowed to change them for their game but that won't change the books or the common basis applied for understanding how D&D works. A player searching for a game of D&D 5e can reasonably expect that the game system will fairly closely resemble the rules outlined in the various 5e sources.

Anyway, the amount of "changes" to the basic "rules" in a particular D&D game is up to the DM ... and how much change would be required constitute a shift from actually playing D&D 5e to a hybrid system that is based on or resembles D&D is entirely up to the players and DM to decide.

Is Forgotten Realms + D&D skills + combat from Rolemaster or some other system still D&D? What if you replace the saving throw system of 5e with one similar to 3.5e ... is this still 5e? Or a hybrid? Where an individual draws the line in terms of how much change leaves the gaming system sufficiently in tact to be called 5e :) ... is entirely up to the individual.

For some folks, if it isn't RAW it isn't 5e. For others, lots of tweaks and modifications to the rules are fine. It is still 5e.

[KOLE]

My only real issue with JC's ruling has to be Shield Master and his thoughts on what can be Twinned by a Sorcerer. Ignoring those, he's pretty okay.

[MaxWilson]

I wish we had used different words other than "rules" for these things.

1) There is a definition of "attack" in the text that applies to those things in the text.
2) The definition of "Attack" as used in the text does not include MM
3) Therefore, MM is not an "attack" as used in the text.
4) Tables can use whatever definition they want (of anything).

So far, there's no serious disagreement. The issue comes in when you call these things "rules". That makes them sound like they're binding things that, if not followed, give rise to "playing it wrong" or "cheating" accusations. Instead, there is merely the text and its internal assumptions and the rules as played (which may or may not incorporate the text and its assumptions).

WotC's editors should have put technical terms like attack and charmed in typographically distinct bold text or something.


The RAP (rules as published, which is to me books + errata) covers about 90% of what you'll encounter at the table; Sage Advice probably covers another 5-10%-, so the average DM only needs to add a little bit to complete the package.

*guffaws*

Running a combat minigame, maybe 80-90% is a good guesstimate for RAP. There are still plenty of gaps (stealth procedures, grappling/dragging weight limit rules, Sanctuary/grappling interactions, monster morale, stealing weapons from monsters like Gloomweavers--these are just what spring instantly to mind) but yeah, most of the time you're probably doing things that are covered by RAP [though you might still want to change some rules to suit you better].

But an actual RPG? 5E supplies maybe 40% of that tops, and even then only if you stick mostly to linear adventures and dungeon crawls. And Sage Advice adds less than 1% on top of that. 90% coverage is utterly implausible.

[ad_hoc]

RAW is not useless in discussions of rules and is not always used for rules lawyers. RAW is used to establish a baseline when there hasn't been any interpretation by people who made the game. RAW allows for a universal interpretation by what the text actually says.

Most people I know only use RAW in an argument because somebody read something wrong and it resulted in them abusing a loop hole that didn't exist. RAW rules add balance to the game and keep it stable.

Now, if you don't use the RAW rules, that's fine. You can do what you want. But don't act like they are some arbitrary shackles to the game. They literally are the game.

The problem is that people don't understand what RAW is. Or, better put, how language works.

They ignore the context and interpret the rules through the lens of codified terms that don't exist.

Making a distinction between rules, variants, and house rules is useful but "RAW" as people use it is nonsense.

For example - A candle provides light for 1 hour. Nowhere does it say that the candle needs to be lit. So the argument is that "RAW" a candle doesn't need to be on fire to provide light.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is that people don't understand what RAW is. Or, better put, how language works.

They ignore the context and interpret the rules through the lens of codified terms that don't exist.

Making a distinction between rules, variants, and house rules is useful but "RAW" as people use it is nonsense.

For example - A candle provides light for 1 hour. Nowhere does it say that the candle needs to be lit. So the argument is that "RAW" a candle doesn't need to be on fire to provide light.

Or that candles are useless if you wait more than one hour after they're created.

That's my big thing about "RAW"--it claims to be "just the text without interpretation" but that's nonsense. All text requires interpretation. "RAW" is really one particular interpretation that's trying to bootstrap itself into being the primary interpretation (or to put down the other interpretations).

[kivzirrum]

I'm always surprised when I see this is so contentious. Isn't this emphasis on rulings over rules something that goes back to the early early days of D&D? It's hardly unprecedented.




That's my big thing about "RAW"--it claims to be "just the text without interpretation" but that's nonsense. All text requires interpretation.

I think this is a VERY valid point that is too often forgotten! :smallsmile:

[Unoriginal]

I'm always surprised when I see this is so contentious. Isn't this emphasis on rulings over rules something that goes back to the early early days of D&D? It's hardly unprecedented.


The 3.5 era made it contentious.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm always surprised when I see this is so contentious. Isn't this emphasis on rulings over rules something that goes back to the early early days of D&D? It's hardly unprecedented.

I think this is a VERY valid point that is too often forgotten! :smallsmile:


The 3.5 era made it contentious.

We so often forget that "RAW" as a thing came in with the birth of discussions on the internet (so sometime during the 3e era). 4e then took it to an extreme. 5e follows the original tradition.

"RAW" was born out of a desire to limit DMs, to constrain them and stigmatize adaptation and innovation by DMs (in favor of "standardizing" the game or "controlling bad DMs"). It failed at this, and merely bred a generation of rules lawyers who loophole hunt to prove others wrong or gain advantage over others.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm always surprised when I see this is so contentious. Isn't this emphasis on rulings over rules something that goes back to the early early days of D&D? It's hardly unprecedented.

Well, any reference to the early days should note a few things:
Almost instantly the game fan-base fractured fractured into a bunch of different subgroups (probably inspired by how they got into it, or how many degrees of separation a player had from someone who learned to play from one of the TSR inner circle).
The instigation for creating 1e AD&D was in no small part because people kept calling Gygax (despite 1970s long distance rates) asking for rules clarifications.
another instigation was the desire for a consistent ruleset for judged tournament play, which was thought was going to be a big thing.
AD&D and oD&D actively contradict each other on how sacrosanct the rules are meant to be.


So even back then, there were a lot of competing ideas about what was the right way to do this whole experiment in table top roleplaying.


The 3.5 era made it contentious.

I think this really is a big part of it. For whatever reason, this became an idea with real legs in alongside the introduction of 3e. Whether through the actual stated rules, the way they were put out, the communication from WotC, maybe where we were in online and forum culture, and all sorts of other factors, it happened. I guess the factors just conspired to make the concept that a single consistent and inarguable ruleset could (and should) be a thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think this really is a big part of it. For whatever reason, this became an idea with real legs in alongside the introduction of 3e. Whether through the actual stated rules, the way they were put out, the communication from WotC, maybe where we were in online and forum culture, and all sorts of other factors, it happened. I guess the factors just conspired to make the concept that a single consistent and inarguable ruleset could (and should) be a thing.

I've seen statements from current and former devs to the effect that it was intentional. People were convinced that AD&D 2e DM's were tyrants, so as part of a reaction they tried to constrain the system, define everything. Homogeneity of rules was considered a good thing. This was exacerbated by the rise of the internet and wider discussions where people finally realized that they had been playing very differently from each other. It also made it easier to ask for clarifications. People started prioritizing the developers' opinion on things over their own table's consensus. Add in the usual (and omnipresent) munchkinry and power-seeking, and a toxic stew resulted.

The original idea wasn't bad, and it was trying to solve a real problem. But like many "solutions", it brought its own set of problems along for the ride and taught people bad habits, mainly the urge to outsource your decision-making ability to others, to push the blame onto someone else.

[KorvinStarmast]

WotC's editors should have put technical terms like attack and charmed in typographically distinct bold text or something.
Agree, for ease of use.
There are still plenty of gaps (stealth procedures, grappling/dragging weight limit rules, Sanctuary/grappling interactions, monster morale, --these are just what spring instantly to mind) but yeah, most of the time you're probably doing things that are covered by RAP [though you might still want to change some rules to suit you better]. Add to your list my not being pleased with the surprise rules of this edition. Soft around the edges is what they are.
But an actual RPG? 5E supplies maybe 40% of that tops I am pretty sure that I am not going to get sucked into a "no true RPG" discussion, but I like the points you previously made.

The 3.5 era made it contentious. The people of the 3.5 era did that, and IMO the "rules mastery and trap builds" design features that Cook willingly put into the mix didn't help.

Isn't this emphasis on rulings over rules something that goes back to the early early days of D&D? It's hardly unprecedented. Yes. Every table was a little different. That was the normal thing.


"RAW" was born out of a desire to limit DMs, to constrain them and stigmatize adaptation and innovation by DMs (in favor of "standardizing" the game or "controlling bad DMs"). We had plenty of rules lawyers in the beginning; some of them eventually got thrown out of our play groups, in my experience.

Well, any reference to the early days should note a few things:
Almost instantly the game fan-base fractured fractured into a bunch of different subgroups (probably inspired by how they got into it, or how many degrees of separation a player had from someone who learned to play from one of the TSR inner circle).
The instigation for creating 1e AD&D was in no small part because people kept calling Gygax (despite 1970s long distance rates) asking for rules clarifications.
another instigation was the desire for a consistent ruleset for judged tournament play, which was thought was going to be a big thing.
AD&D and oD&D actively contradict each other on how sacrosanct the rules are meant to be.
Yeah, and particularly your last bullet, which I bolded.


... maybe where we were in online and forum culture, and all sorts of other factors, it happened. I guess the factors just conspired to make the concept that a single consistent and inarguable ruleset could (and should) be a thing. Nitpicking developed to a high art is a feature of internet culture. Same is true for CRPG's and MMOs.

I've seen statements from current and former devs to the effect that it was intentional. People were convinced that AD&D 2e DM's were tyrants, so as part of a reaction they tried to constrain the system, define everything. The road to hell, and pavement ... someone believed that a rule book would modify human behavior. I guess they didn't ever meet anyone who had ever had a speeding ticket. But the speed limit was 45! What do you mean you were doing 50? I'll stop there.
And a simpler game than D&D had a world famous sphincter rules lawyer on TV when D&D was growing in popularity: John McEnroe.

[Theodoric]

We so often forget that "RAW" as a thing came in with the birth of discussions on the internet (so sometime during the 3e era). 4e then took it to an extreme. 5e follows the original tradition.

"RAW" was born out of a desire to limit DMs, to constrain them and stigmatize adaptation and innovation by DMs (in favor of "standardizing" the game or "controlling bad DMs"). It failed at this, and merely bred a generation of rules lawyers who loophole hunt to prove others wrong or gain advantage over others.
I'm not sure that's a fair description; controlling DMs might just as well be a side-effect. The way I see it, RAW did arise as a result of fan discussion, but it's also there to make sure everyone is talking about roughly the same game without any local houserules. RAI and RAW are both ways of establishing a hypothetical 'default' game, with the goal of facilitating discussion. RAW has the added bonus of appearing objective, even if it's not really how rules work (ever).

But obviously it's been taken too far, with folks making the leap from having a hypothetical 'default' game to assuming it's the only way to play. That's putting the horse before the cart, and it's good that Crawford's trying to tone reduce that tendency.

[KorvinStarmast]

But obviously it's been taken too far, with folks making the leap from having a hypothetical 'default' game to assuming it's the only way to play. That's putting the horse before the cart, and it's good that Crawford's trying to tone reduce that tendency. Public play like Adventure Paths and Adventurer's League sorta call for something like a standardized rule/ruling set. (And here we go back to why Gygax felt he had to publish AD&D 1e in the first place ...)
Now, don't get me started in the NFL, and now Major League Baseball with their replay officials ... ruining the game.
Another case of "we don't care if the referee is In A Vast Majority of Cases if Correct; some (censored) wants zero defects."

[Pex]

Back in the 3.5 era, "the rules control the game, not the players or the DM" was a common sentiment.

To the point that people even nowadays complain it is not the case in 5e.

Most of the 5E DMs I play with want to follow the rules, i.e. RAW. They might have house rules of one or two things like anyone in any game, but they want to play by the rules and will change what they said when it's discovered it is against the rules. The one DM who doesn't I tolerate for metagame reasons. It hasn't yet reached more not fun than fun so time to quit level.

Rules are not anathema to gaming, and that goes for 5E too. I agree with what was said. Rules are the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Most of the 5E DMs I play with want to follow the rules, i.e. RAW. They might have house rules of one or two things like anyone in any game, but they want to play by the rules and will change what they said when it's discovered it is against the rules. The one DM who doesn't I tolerate for metagame reasons. It hasn't yet reached more not fun than fun so time to quit level.

Rules are not anathema to gaming, and that goes for 5E too. I agree with what was said. Rules are the game.

If the written rules have primacy, surely there's some rules text saying that. I'd even accept Dev statements to that effect.

You can't find any, however. In fact, what you'll find is explicit, repeated, strongly worded rules that say the opposite. That the rules as printed are not the game, nor are they any more binding or valuable than house rules or rulings. In fact, rulings are given explicit primacy over rules text.

By your own arguments, RAW > all is not a rule. In fact, if there's any such thing as breaking the 5e rules, being dogmatic and narrow minded about what a rule is would be a prime example of doing so.

Text =/= rules =/= RAW by its own standard of evidence.

Edit: Here's a non-comprehensive list of things you can do/discuss without ever invoking RAW as a concept:
* You can use the text of the books to support a line of reasoning or an opinion.
* You can discuss consequences of particular rulings and suggest alternatives.
* You can share ideas on how to make things more fun.
* You can help people decide if the DM was being a jerk (or help the DM decide how to handle a dispute.
* You can give discuss homebrew.
* Just about anything else except as noted below.

Here's a comprehensive list of things you can't do without invoking RAW as a concept:
* Tell someone else who is not at your table they're playing it wrong.
* Win arguments on the internet.
* Use rules as weapons.

[Darth Ultron]

I've seen statements from current and former devs to the effect that it was intentional. People were convinced that AD&D 2e DM's were tyrants, so as part of a reaction they tried to constrain the system, define everything.

This was a big thing around 2000 right before 3E. It's exactly why 3E and 3.5E are so ''everyone follows the rules".




The instigation for creating 1e AD&D was in no small part because people kept calling Gygax (despite 1970s long distance rates) asking for rules clarifications.


Though this needs a bit of context.

The vast majority of players were asking Gygax (or others) for their advice or viewpoint. It was much more 'how would you answer this question?" or "What would you do?" The average RPG company person very much thought of themselves as ''just a fellow gamer" and they where just "helping another fellow gamer".

Come 3.0, this changes. Now the ''company people" are the smug know-it-alls, up on high horses and they will tell you the correct way to play the official game.

It's also the big split between a player asking a question:

*Old School: "Hum, well, they answered my question. Now I must think for myself and decide what I will do in my won game. I could just do what they suggested, I could use thier advice to think up my own answer...or just do something else.

*Modern: --Falls down one floor-- "The All Knowing Rule Lords have spoken. they have not only given us the carved in stone true answer, but also the most official Game Rule that must be followed. All Hail the Rules."

[Pex]

If we call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have?

[PhoenixPhyre]

If we call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have?

You're being totally circular. If you define RAW as the only rules, then anything else isn't the real rules. But how did you define RAW as the only rules? Pure magic. Neither text of books nor word of developers define things that way--in fact they define only the opposite. The printed text is only a small part of the rules, and not the most important part by the very text of the books themselves. You're the one fighting the rules here, not me.

[Thrudd]

Written rules don't need to explicitly say they are intended to be followed- that is implied by the fact that they bothered to write them. The suggestion and expectation that you will customize some of the rules to your needs does not mean what is written shouldn't be seen as "rules". Yes, there are lots of options and variants to play with, yes there is lots of leeway in how you adjudicate the actual playing. But there is a baseline of basic rules which are "the game", without which it just couldn't be said to be D&D of this particular edition, or a game at all. Folks might disagree about just which and how many of the rules in the book are required to make it a game of D&D, but there unquestionably must be a "point of no return".

[guachi]

My only real issue with JC's ruling has to be Shield Master and his thoughts on what can be Twinned by a Sorcerer. Ignoring those, he's pretty okay.

I'll limit my issue just to Shield Master. One, because I created a Twitter account just to tweet him the question that set the "bash first, attack action second" precedent. And, two, because I think it's a good ruling, anyway.

However, I also think that standardizing how bonus actions work has value. So holistically I like the clarification of all bonus actions. It's just that I'd have rewritten Shield Master similarly to how bonus action spells/cantrips work. That is, I'd have written that if you use the Shield Master bonus action the only action you can take is your Attack action.

[Darth Ultron]

A quote from Gary Gygax:


“It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule books upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, you campaign next and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be.”

Dungeon Master’s Guide (page 230), Gary Gygax

[Lunali]

I don't particularly care if a group follows the letter of the rules, but it bugs me when the group doesn't know they're not following the rules. Often there will be a partial understanding of a rule or a change from a previous edition that greatly enhances or weakens a mechanic without the rest of the rule that balances it out.

[Kadesh]

We so often forget that "RAW" as a thing came in with the birth of discussions on the internet (so sometime during the 3e era). 4e then took it to an extreme. 5e follows the original tradition.

"RAW" was born out of a desire to limit DMs, to constrain them and stigmatize adaptation and innovation by DMs (in favor of "standardizing" the game or "controlling bad DMs"). It failed at this, and merely bred a generation of rules lawyers who loophole hunt to prove others wrong or gain advantage over others.

You're talking out of your backside here, but I'm interested in seeing what other nonsense you can come up with.

Do go on.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You're talking out of your backside here, but I'm interested in seeing what other nonsense you can come up with.

Do go on.

I don't think that was a nonsensical statement, in fact I've seen more evidence from people that have played those editions in support of the statement than to the contrary. This doesn't make it a completely negative thing, if the people that continue to play 3.5E (and there are a lot, even today) are happy, power to them. My only hope is that the people who care that 5E is so different understand that it's because it was designed with a different mindset.

I'm also not sure I appreciate such an inflammatory statement when just about everyone here is trying to have a legitimate discussion on things.

[Willie the Duck]

You're talking out of your backside here, but I'm interested in seeing what other nonsense you can come up with.

Do go on.

If you are going to actively refrain from even contributing an argument, nor point out any specific line of reasoning you think is flawed (and how), saying that someone else is talking out of their backside seems pretty darn hypocritical. Do you have an actual point to make or something to contend?

[kivzirrum]

Well, any reference to the early days should note a few things:
Almost instantly the game fan-base fractured fractured into a bunch of different subgroups (probably inspired by how they got into it, or how many degrees of separation a player had from someone who learned to play from one of the TSR inner circle).
The instigation for creating 1e AD&D was in no small part because people kept calling Gygax (despite 1970s long distance rates) asking for rules clarifications.
another instigation was the desire for a consistent ruleset for judged tournament play, which was thought was going to be a big thing.
AD&D and oD&D actively contradict each other on how sacrosanct the rules are meant to be.


So even back then, there were a lot of competing ideas about what was the right way to do this whole experiment in table top roleplaying.


This is certainly a fair point. I always thought it was interesting that AD&D was meant to be codified for tournament play, considering everyone I've talked to who played 1e back in the day basically played it however they wanted, including mixing in rules from OD&D and Basic or B/X or what-have-you. So this definitely seems to support your assertion about "competing ideas." Good to know some things never change :smallbiggrin:


The 3.5 era made it contentious.

Which is fascinating, because the 3.x era is when I got into the game, and I never encountered this attitude until I started lurking this forum in the last couple years, after 5e came out.


Most of the 5E DMs I play with want to follow the rules, i.e. RAW. They might have house rules of one or two things like anyone in any game, but they want to play by the rules and will change what they said when it's discovered it is against the rules. The one DM who doesn't I tolerate for metagame reasons. It hasn't yet reached more not fun than fun so time to quit level.

Rules are not anathema to gaming, and that goes for 5E too. I agree with what was said. Rules are the game.

I respect your opinion, and I figure as long as you and your buddies are having fun, that's what matters, right? :smallsmile:



*Old School: "Hum, well, they answered my question. Now I must think for myself and decide what I will do in my won game. I could just do what they suggested, I could use thier advice to think up my own answer...or just do something else.

*Modern: --Falls down one floor-- "The All Knowing Rule Lords have spoken. they have not only given us the carved in stone true answer, but also the most official Game Rule that must be followed. All Hail the Rules."

Harsh, but amusing.

[Kadesh]

If you are going to actively refrain from even contributing an argument, nor point out any specific line of reasoning you think is flawed (and how), saying that someone else is talking out of their backside seems pretty darn hypocritical. Do you have an actual point to make or something to contend?

Your inability to read doesn't mean that Poster was talking any less nonsense then they were. Kindly back off.

[Rhedyn]

You obviously can do whatever you want at your table.

You are only playing a particular system because the rules do what you want (or are close to it)

Classes and Monsters "having HP" is a little rule detail, a DM is free to ignore it, but shouldn't surprised when he gets asked the question, "Why are you playing D&D then?"

Once again, I think JC is full of it. GURPS 4e is designed as a layered toolkit where you only use the level of detail you want. D&D 5e is not designed like that and anyone familiar with actual tool kit systems would know that to be a fact.
Just because JC and Mearls do not understand their system doesn't mean it's actually a tool kit.

I think this is more JC trying to cover his ass because his tweets are actively worsening the experience of D&D 5e at basically any table that I've been a part of or heard of discussed. As in any table aware of his tweets is playing a worse game.

[kivzirrum]

Your inability to read doesn't mean that Poster was talking any less nonsense then they were. Kindly back off.

Come on, y'all. We don't need to be so harsh about it, right? It's just a game and we're just discussing difference in play philosophies, I'm sure we can at least prevent it from devolving into argument and cruelty for a full three pages, no? :smallwink:

[Kadesh]

Come on, y'all. We don't need to be so harsh about it, right? It's just a game and we're just discussing difference in play philosophies, I'm sure we can at least prevent it from devolving into argument and cruelty for a full three pages, no? :smallwink:

Fine by me. Ball's in their court if they want to respond or not :)

[PhoenixPhyre]

As far as standardizing for competitive play/organized play, I see two (reasonable) options.

1. You can base your whole ruleset around the organized play. This means squashing ambiguity at the system level and codifying everything. This can be good, but it can also be confining. It also limits the options available (to maintain "balance"). Of the D&D-types that I know of, 4e came the closest to this; it seems that PF 2.0 is doing this to a large degree.

2. You can base your ruleset around home play (ie non-organized play) and treat organized play as a meta-table. That is, the rules for organized play must clear up as many ambiguities as possible as if they were all sitting at the same table. This can't be as standardized as a fully standardized system, but constrains home-play much less and allows for more variation if desired. It also runs the risk of confusion--which are the system's constraints and which are those of the organized play system? This is the approach that AL took in 5e--AL is a superset of 5e with particular choices made for some of the choices.

Which is better? I don't think there's an objective case. Merely choices and tradeoffs. What doesn't make sense to me is to take one of the two cases and try to make it the other case after the fact. This means that 5e's AL must be treated as the particular special case it is, rather than trying to make the tail wag the dog and enforce its peculiarities across the whole system.

Is consistency between tables important? Mu. For organized play, certainly. For home play? Depends on what you value. I, for one, would rather not have consistency between tables I play at because I value exploration, including "what happens if you change the fundamental properties of the rules" exploration. Others may differ. Which is fine.

[kivzirrum]

As far as standardizing for competitive play/organized play, I see two (reasonable) options.

1. You can base your whole ruleset around the organized play. This means squashing ambiguity at the system level and codifying everything. This can be good, but it can also be confining. It also limits the options available (to maintain "balance"). Of the D&D-types that I know of, 4e came the closest to this; it seems that PF 2.0 is doing this to a large degree.

2. You can base your ruleset around home play (ie non-organized play) and treat organized play as a meta-table. That is, the rules for organized play must clear up as many ambiguities as possible as if they were all sitting at the same table. This can't be as standardized as a fully standardized system, but constrains home-play much less and allows for more variation if desired. It also runs the risk of confusion--which are the system's constraints and which are those of the organized play system? This is the approach that AL took in 5e--AL is a superset of 5e with particular choices made for some of the choices.

Option 2 certainly risks confusion, but it has the benefit of (potentially) appealing to a broader array of people, right? I know a game that was entirely balanced around tournament play would not appeal to me or my friends, for example. That said, a lot of people obviously like tournament play, so having a ruleset that discourages it is no good.

[Rhedyn]

As far as standardizing for competitive play/organized play, I see two (reasonable) options.

1. You can base your whole ruleset around the organized play. This means squashing ambiguity at the system level and codifying everything. This can be good, but it can also be confining. It also limits the options available (to maintain "balance"). Of the D&D-types that I know of, 4e came the closest to this; it seems that PF 2.0 is doing this to a large degree.

2. You can base your ruleset around home play (ie non-organized play) and treat organized play as a meta-table. That is, the rules for organized play must clear up as many ambiguities as possible as if they were all sitting at the same table. This can't be as standardized as a fully standardized system, but constrains home-play much less and allows for more variation if desired. It also runs the risk of confusion--which are the system's constraints and which are those of the organized play system? This is the approach that AL took in 5e--AL is a superset of 5e with particular choices made for some of the choices.

Which is better? I don't think there's an objective case. Merely choices and tradeoffs. What doesn't make sense to me is to take one of the two cases and try to make it the other case after the fact. This means that 5e's AL must be treated as the particular special case it is, rather than trying to make the tail wag the dog and enforce its peculiarities across the whole system.

Is consistency between tables important? Mu. For organized play, certainly. For home play? Depends on what you value. I, for one, would rather not have consistency between tables I play at because I value exploration, including "what happens if you change the fundamental properties of the rules" exploration. Others may differ. Which is fine.

1. To various extents 4e and PF2e achieve more rules exactness by simplification to reduce the number of edge cases that require either complicated rules or GM rulings. 4e was special because it then turned around and made martials more complicated and interesting so that they could play at the same level of casters. Caster players benefited from the knowledge they weren't about to break the game by playing how they want with the mechanics. PF2e offers none of that but builds are more complicated I guess.

2. This can't exist. Once you have official rulings those are the official rules. They carry weight and authority that the game "was meant to be played" via what the rulings were. If AL was ran better, you would embrace table variation and not make official rulings.

I reject the notion that organized play even requires consistent rulings. If the ruling is important enough to be rules in certain ways, then it should be a rule.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Option 2 certainly risks confusion, but it has the benefit of (potentially) appealing to a broader array of people, right? I know a game that was entirely balanced around tournament play would not appeal to me or my friends, for example. That said, a lot of people obviously like tournament play, so having a ruleset that discourages it is no good.

I agree with all of this. In fact, that was rather my point. Each option is valid for some people. It isn't a matter of good vs bad design, merely a matter of intended application.

Games that are good for tournament play are often not all that conducive for other other types of play. This is exacerbated when dealing with games that intrinisically require human adjudication (like TTRPGs or other open-ended games). As soon as you allow for human interactions with the rules (a DM that's anything other than a referee like in TT war-games, for example), you end up with unavoidable inconsistency.

[kivzirrum]

As soon as you allow for human interactions with the rules (a DM that's anything other than a referee like in TT war-games, for example), you end up with unavoidable inconsistency.

That said, I agree with your earlier point that inconsistency need not be a bad thing all the time. I, too, like seeing what different tables do with different houserules and different interpretations of the same rules. I think that flexibility is what makes TTRPGs fun, and distinct from games with more codified rules systems like chess (a game which I also enjoy, don't get me wrong).

Honestly, I think game designers have an unenviable task. That so many of them do as well as they do at creating these games is commendable.

[kivzirrum]

2. This can't exist. Once you have official rulings those are the official rules. They carry weight and authority that the game "was meant to be played" via what the rulings were. If AL was ran better, you would embrace table variation and not make official rulings.

I reject the notion that organized play even requires consistent rulings. If the ruling is important enough to be rules in certain ways, then it should be a rule.

I have to admit, I don't quite understand what you mean by the parts I've bolded, but I am intrigued. Would it be too much trouble if I asked you to elaborate?

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for action.