Rules Citation Requested: Fluff vs Crunch

[PhoenixPhyre]

I frequently see arguments in RAW-oriented threads (and from such posters) that certain passages in the books are "merely fluff", not actual rules (and thus can be ignored when divining the "correct" interpretation of the text).

If this is true by a RAW view, there must be textual authority for it. Can someone point me to the passage in any of the 1st-party printed works that makes this distinction and gives rules for determining what is fluff and what is crunch?

If this were the 4e forums I could do exactly that for powers. PHB 55 contains a section "Flavor Text" containing the following:


A power's flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. Your wizard's magic missile spell, for example, might create phantasmal skulls that howl through the air to strike your opponent, rather than simple bolts of magical energy.

When you need to know the exact effect, look at the rules text that follows.

I have yet to find it for anything in 5e. Of course a DM (or player, with DM permission) can alter anything, but that goes equally well for "rules". In the absence of such a textual authority, there can be no RAW distinction--anything written must be evaluated as part of the rules unless it specifically exempts itself.

[Malifice]

A longsword does 1d8 slashing damage, 1d10 versatile.

It doesnt have to be a longsword though. It can be a falcata, katana, jian, tulwar, sabre, cutlass, or whatever.

As long as the rules remain intact, you can generally fluff stuff how you want.

I dont know too many DMs that wouldnt let you fluff your Dragon sorcerer as a demon sorcerer, and even let you switch Draconinc language for Abyssal (that last change would be a rules change though).

[PhoenixPhyre]

A longsword does 1d8 slashing damage, 1d10 versatile.

It doesnt have to be a longsword though. It can be a falcata, katana, jian, tulwar, sabre, cutlass, or whatever.

As long as the rules remain intact, you can generally fluff stuff how you want.

I dont know too many DMs that wouldnt let you fluff your Dragon sorcerer as a demon sorcerer, and even let you switch Draconinc language for Abyssal (that last change would be a rules change though).

The bold is the sentence that I'm looking for explicit textual support for. I can see it for monk weapons (there's a sidebar about renaming them), but, for example, for spells I see no such support. Unless you have a book/page citation, the rest is merely "Rule 0" (which is true but not responsive). A DM can change anything including rules, so that does not separate non-binding fluff from binding (on players, absent DM permission) rules.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I can't see anything in black and white, at least not in the PHB. Obviously the line between fluff and crunch has been blurred since 4e; there's no firm partition any more. But like, it doesn't take to much to separate it out. The fluff is almost always presented first, as in:


Darkvision. Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern colour in darkness, only shades of grey.

The magenta section is clearly fluff, because it has no mechanical meaning. It's purely descriptive and can be freely changed or deleted without having any impact on the game (though it could have roleplaying implications). For example, if I change dwarves to be nocturnal forest-dwellers, that's a re-fluffing that doesn't affect their mechanics at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can't see anything in black and white, at least not in the PHB. Obviously the line between fluff and crunch has been blurred since 4e; there's no firm partition any more. But like, it doesn't take to much to separate it out. The fluff is almost always presented first, as in:


Darkvision. Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern colour in darkness, only shades of grey.

The magenta section is clearly fluff, because it has no mechanical meaning. It's purely descriptive and can be freely changed or deleted without having any impact on the game (though it could have roleplaying implications). For example, if I change dwarves to be nocturnal forest-dwellers, that's a re-fluffing that doesn't affect their mechanics at all.

Non responsive. That's part of the context of the rule, so it's a rule text. Any change is a house rule, not RAW. Without textual authority you can't pick and choose what context you use.

I'll be quite honest, I find the idea of RAW to be incoherent on its face. But if you accept it as binding, you can't cherry pick. Either you have explicit rules text on a subject or you don't. If you don't, you can't just declare parts not binding and still say you're following the text.

[Millstone85]

The worst case of crunch/fluff dissonance might be Create Thrall.

The affected creature isn't under your control, doesn't become an ally, doesn't even become friendly. It is nowhere near "a thrall".

Now, if you consider the name of the feature to be crunch, then I guess the extent of your control is for the DM to homebrew.

[Tanarii]

There is no such distinction, except in the head of certain posters. It's a false dichotomy in every edition of 5e except 4e, where it was made explicit.

The rules are the rules. Some are role-playing rules, some are world rules, some are variant or optional rules, some are combat rules, some are resolution rules. Many blend some combination of those. Some are more easily modifiable. Some are vague and imprecise. Some are pretty obviously descriptive or examples, but even then can contain things that will affect gameplay directly in a rules-like fashion, if you will.

For an example of the last, each class and race has a section that is heavy on descriptive / example text. But even then, the section describing Monk Ki (for example) affects the how a DM will treat Ki when the question comes up as to if it is magic, and how it interacts with other rules based on if things are magic.

[Unoriginal]

One of the most explicit instances showing fluff and crunch are the same is the Druid's "doesn't wear metal armors" feature.

It's also one of the things that tend to create flame-consumed discussions, because some people don't accept that the game can have "fluff" restrictions, even if all DMs are free to wave them off.

[JackPhoenix]

One of the most explicit instances showing fluff and crunch are the same is the Druid's "doesn't wear metal armors" feature.

Except it's not. Crunch-wise, there's nothing stopping a druid from wearing metal armor, voluntarily or not. The druids *choose* to avoid wearing metal armor, but they can also choose to wear it, and unlike paladins, who can also choose to ignore the tenets of their oaths, they suffer no consequences for doing so.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One of the most explicit instances showing fluff and crunch are the same is the Druid's "doesn't wear metal armors" feature.

It's also one of the things that tend to create flame-consumed discussions, because some people don't accept that the game can have "fluff" restrictions, even if all DMs are free to wave them off.


Except it's not. Crunch-wise, there's nothing stopping a druid from wearing metal armor, voluntarily or not. The druids *choose* to avoid wearing metal armor, but they can also choose to wear it, and unlike paladins, who can also choose to ignore the tenets of their oaths, they suffer no consequences for doing so.

From a RAW perspective, the restriction on metal armors and druids is exactly as binding as the rule prohibiting a druid from wildshaping into a tarrasque. The rules themselves make no distinction between "mechanics" and "narrative fluff." They're all "rules".

From my personal perspective, there are no rules except what a table agrees to abide by. The text provides one group of people's (the designers') ideas of what a properly-consistent and fun set of rules might be, but that's persuasive evidence, not binding precedent. The text is a starting point, from which deviation is not only allowed, it's expected. Rule 0 is not so much an exception, but it's a reminder of the underlying reality--that the text does not have primacy. The table and its decisions as a whole do. The text does not assume that it will be followed to the letter (or interpreted literally, or with a crunch/fluff distinction, etc.). The best (and only working) interpretation of any set of game rules is as a starter for a conversation (which continues as long as the game does) as to what the real rules will be.

[JackPhoenix]

From a RAW perspective, the restriction on metal armors and druids is exactly as binding as the rule prohibiting a druid from wildshaping into a tarrasque. The rules themselves make no distinction between "mechanics" and "narrative fluff." They're all "rules".

It's not. There are rules for wildshape, telling what you can turn into. Tarrasque doesn't fit into that.

Druids "will not" wear armor made from metal, but "will not" isn't the same as "can't". It implies a choice. Now, problem with that isn't in druid, but in paladin: their oaths also tell you how they'll act... except they don't have to. They can choose to act contrary to their oath and there's nothing stopping them. There are consequences for breaking the oath, but nothing that can actually prevent the paladin from doing so... there's even a subclass based on that.

Druids are fully physically capable of wearing metal armor, are proficient with some of them, and suffer no penalties for doing so. If a druid puts on metal armor... he may be dominated, he may be somehow forced by his enemies, he may do it willingly for some reason, whatever... nothing happens. He won't lose druidic abilities, he won't suffer any mechanical penalties, and he's not required to immediately attempt to remove it... there are no consequences, mechanical or otherwise, for doing so.

It's similar to alignment or personality characteristics: they are also part of the rules, but that doesn't your character is incapable to behave contrary to them, or that you're making houserules if they do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's not. There are rules for wildshape, telling what you can turn into. Tarrasque doesn't fit into that.

Druids "will not" wear armor made from metal, but "will not" isn't the same as "can't". It implies a choice. Now, problem with that isn't in druid, but in paladin: their oaths also tell you how they'll act... except they don't have to. They can choose to act contrary to their oath and there's nothing stopping them. There are consequences for breaking the oath, but nothing that can actually prevent the paladin from doing so... there's even a subclass based on that.

Druids are fully physically capable of wearing metal armor, are proficient with some of them, and suffer no penalties for doing so. If a druid puts on metal armor... he may be dominated, he may be somehow forced by his enemies, he may do it willingly for some reason, whatever... nothing happens. He won't lose druidic abilities, he won't suffer any mechanical penalties, and he's not required to immediately attempt to remove it... there are no consequences, mechanical or otherwise, for doing so.

It's similar to alignment or personality characteristics: they are also part of the rules, but that doesn't your character is incapable to behave contrary to them, or that you're making houserules if they do.

No. You're imposing an artificial distinction. It says druids will not. Yes, they are capable of doing so, but choose not to. All of them. Without exception. No ifs, no ands, no buts. They will not. They refuse. Rules without mechanical penalties are still rules unless you can find direct, explicit rules that say otherwise.

Mechanics =/= rules. There is nothing in the text that claims such a thing, nor is such a claim even meaningful in this edition.

And you still haven't responded to the original request, which was for evidence. I see people claiming a distinction, but no one has provided a citation. Which is what RAW demands. Live by RAW, die by RAW.

Edit: as an example, one of my personal rules is that I will not drink alcoholic beverages. I can--there's no hammer that will strike me down if I do, but it's still a rule. A very firm, binding rule. For ethical people, will not and cannot are not meaningfully different.

[Unoriginal]

It's not. There are rules for wildshape, telling what you can turn into. Tarrasque doesn't fit into that.

Druids "will not" wear armor made from metal, but "will not" isn't the same as "can't". It implies a choice. Now, problem with that isn't in druid, but in paladin: their oaths also tell you how they'll act... except they don't have to. They can choose to act contrary to their oath and there's nothing stopping them. There are consequences for breaking the oath, but nothing that can actually prevent the paladin from doing so... there's even a subclass based on that.

Druids are fully physically capable of wearing metal armor, are proficient with some of them, and suffer no penalties for doing so. If a druid puts on metal armor... he may be dominated, he may be somehow forced by his enemies, he may do it willingly for some reason, whatever... nothing happens. He won't lose druidic abilities, he won't suffer any mechanical penalties, and he's not required to immediately attempt to remove it... there are no consequences, mechanical or otherwise, for doing so.

It's similar to alignment or personality characteristics: they are also part of the rules, but that doesn't your character is incapable to behave contrary to them, or that you're making houserules if they do.

If the text of the feature says that the Druid will not do X, then they will not do X. They are capable of doing X, but they won't.

Contrarily to a Paladin who can and might not respect their tennets if they want to. Or contrarily to Bonds, Traits, Flaws, Ideals and alignment which precise that the character don't have to 100% follow them all the time and that almost no creature do follow them all the time.

The game designers have acknowledged that the Druids not wearing metal armor hasn't anything to do with mechanics, it's simply part of the class's identity. But it's still a rule. A rule you're free to discard, but a rule none the less.

[Tanarii]

You're imposing an artificial distinction.
Exactly. In 5e, as in many and even most RPGs, "fluff vs crunch" is an artificial distinction drawn by the person trying to make the artificial distinction. And where they draw the line is somewhat arbitrary and personal preference, because there's no such official distinction.

Druids & armor is a great example. It's effectively a roleplaying rule. To some people who try to apply the artificial "fluff vs crunch" distinction, that means they can safely declare it "fluff" in an attempt to ignore that it's a rule in the book.

[Malifice]

. If a druid puts on metal armor... he may be dominated, he may be somehow forced by his enemies, he may do it willingly for some reason, whatever... nothing happens. He won't lose druidic abilities, he won't suffer any mechanical penalties, and he's not required to immediately attempt to remove it... there are no consequences, mechanical or otherwise, for doing so.

Not technically true.

A druid *will not* wear metal armor. So a person that willingly wears metal armor is not a druid.

[JackPhoenix]

Not technically true.

A druid *will not* wear metal armor. So a person that willingly wears metal armor is not a druid.

They can still have all the proficiencies, abilities and spells of a druid. There's no special name for such a person. Druid won't stop being a druid just because he puts on a chainmail, because there's no such thing as ex-druid in the rules.

If it's got no mechanical implications, it's not crunch. It's a rule, but it's fluff rule, not crunch rule.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They can still have all the proficiencies, abilities and spells of a druid. There's no special name for such a person. Druid won't stop being a druid just because he puts on a chainmail, because there's no such thing as ex-druid in the rules.

If it's got no mechanical implications, it's not crunch. It's a rule, but it's fluff rule, not crunch rule.

So what? It's still a rule, as a rose by any other name. It's no less binding (or more, for that matter) by giving it a different name.

[LudicSavant]

If I understand correctly, PhoenixPyre is arguing that there's no distinction between rules and flavor, unless the book explicitly tells you that there is. That somehow, the "default assumption" is that all things in the book are rules, regardless of context.

By PhoenixPyre's argument, do all halflings have to keep their treasure locked in cellars? Must all humans dream of immortality, or they're not humans?

I really don't think that's the intention. I think this calls for a smidgeon of common sense.


The dilemma seems to be based on the a priori assumption that "by default," everything contained in the book is a rule. However, the book seems to suggest otherwise, even if it may not explicitly state it. For example, it says that

"This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays." It doesn't say "Everything in this book is a hard rule."

[Tanarii]

If I understand correctly, PhoenixPyre is arguing that there's no distinction between rules and flavor, unless the book explicitly tells you that there is. That somehow, the "default assumption" is that all things in the book are rules, regardless of context.

By PhoenixPyre's argument, do all halflings have to keep their treasure locked in cellars? Must all humans dream of immortality, or they're not humans?

I really don't think that's the intention. I think this calls for a smidgeon of common sense.Youve missed the point. The point is there is no definition of "fluff" vs "crunch". If you want to impose that distinction, you draw the artificial line where you want.

Other artificial divisions can exist. For example, personally I draw the lines as descriptive text, world rules, roleplaying rules, and resolution rules. And I don't put the lines in my artificial distinctions in the same place as all fluff/crunch dividers, many of whom will insist that what I call a world rule and roleplaying rule are in fact not actually rules.

Another example: do you allow players to "fluff" a longsword as a rapier, and use it one handed with finesse? Or is the name itself a rule applying to specific kinds objects? Does it make a difference if you're handing out a Longsword +1 and a player wants to "fluff" it as a Rapier instead?

[LudicSavant]

Youve missed the point. The point is there is no definition of "fluff" vs "crunch".

I didn't miss that at all. Please check what I said again.

I said that PhoenixPyre is arguing that there's no definition distinguishing between rules and flavor. Or, as you might put it, "fluff" and "crunch."

[Tanarii]

I didn't miss that at all. Please check what I said again.

I said that PhoenixPyre is arguing that there's no definition distinguishing between rules and flavor. Or, as you might put it, "fluff" and "crunch."


Those two things are not synonymous. Which is the point you're still apparently missing.

I don't think he's arguing what you said he was arguing, and certainly not once you gave an example. But he'll have to speak for himself, incorporating your example.

Edited quote text to incorporate your edits. :smallamused:

[LudicSavant]

Those two things are not synonymous. Which is the point you're still apparently missing.

So you're saying "rules" and "crunch" and "fluff" and "flavor" aren't synonymous?

In that case, you seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying, because I was using them as synonyms. Which, to many people, they are.

[Tanarii]

So you're saying "rules" and "crunch" and "fluff" and "flavor" aren't synonymous?

In that case, you're missing the point of what I'm saying, because I'm using them as synonyms.
Is a roleplaying rule, like only evil necromancers frequently apcreating undead:
flavor or a rule?
Fluff or crunch?

What about Alignment behavior descriptions?
Rule or flavor?
Crunch or fluff?

Personally I'd call both of those a fluffy rule, if I was being forced to use those categories. Heh

[Malifice]

They can still have all the proficiencies, abilities and spells of a druid. There's no special name for such a person. Druid won't stop being a druid just because he puts on a chainmail, because there's no such thing as ex-druid in the rules.

If it's got no mechanical implications, it's not crunch. It's a rule, but it's fluff rule, not crunch rule.

No, but there is a DM in the rules.

And Druids will not wear metal armor You wear it, and you're no longer a druid.

[LudicSavant]

*snip*

"Rule/crunch" and "fluff/flavor" are often used as synonyms.

[Unoriginal]

They can still have all the proficiencies, abilities and spells of a druid. There's no special name for such a person. Druid won't stop being a druid just because he puts on a chainmail, because there's no such thing as ex-druid in the rules.

If it's got no mechanical implications, it's not crunch. It's a rule, but it's fluff rule, not crunch rule.

There is no consequences that happen when a Druid willingly put on a chainmail because a Druid will not willingly put on a chainmail.

That's it. A Druid will not do it.

You may choose to not take this rule into account, but it is nevertheless a rule.

[OvisCaedo]

Hmm. The text doesn't say that a druid won't wear metal armor willingly. It says they will not, hard stop. Who knows what kinds of calamitous reality-rending incidents will occur if you try to slip a gauntlet onto a sleeping druid's hand in order to prevent the impossible?

[Unoriginal]

No, but there is a DM in the rules.

And Druids will not wear metal armor You wear it, and you're no longer a druid.

It's not "you wear it, you are no longer a druid", it is "if you will wear it, you are not a druid".

There is no Druid that will wear metal armor, so there is no "you are no longer a Druid if you do that" consequences. Because a consequence for a deed would imply there is a possibility the deed will be done, and in the case of the Druid it will not.

[LudicSavant]

I frequently see arguments in RAW-oriented threads (and from such posters) that certain passages in the books are "merely fluff", not actual rules (and thus can be ignored when divining the "correct" interpretation of the text).

If this is true by a RAW view, there must be textual authority for it. Can someone point me to the passage in any of the 1st-party printed works that makes this distinction and gives rules for determining what is fluff and what is crunch?

If this were the 4e forums I could do exactly that for powers. PHB 55 contains a section "Flavor Text" containing the following:



I have yet to find it for anything in 5e. Of course a DM (or player, with DM permission) can alter anything, but that goes equally well for "rules". In the absence of such a textual authority, there can be no RAW distinction--anything written must be evaluated as part of the rules unless it specifically exempts itself.

To my knowledge there is no passage specifically differentiating what is fluff or what is crunch. However I was able to find passages that imply that there is intended to be a distinction between stuff that's "merely fluff" rather than "actual rules," but nothing actually defining in hard terms where that line is. Seems like a lot of 5e is written in a fuzzy manner like that.

[Unoriginal]

To my knowledge there is no passage specifically differentiating what is fluff or what is crunch. However I was able to find passages that imply that there is intended to be a distinction between stuff that's "merely fluff" rather than "actual rules," but nothing actually defining in hard terms where that line is. Seems like a lot of 5e is written in a fuzzy manner like that.

It was done on purpose. They wanted to avoid the whole exact-word-and-legalese circus.

[LudicSavant]

It was done on purpose. They wanted to avoid the whole exact-word-and-legalese circus.

Yeah.

The implication from the books, as far as I can gather, is that there is a line but they wanna leave it up to DMs to determine exactly where it is.

[diplomancer]

"fluff" is a rule I don't want to follow, "crunch" is a rule I want you to follow. Those are the meanings of the words as they are actually used in such arguments.

[Knaight]

Let's talk qualitative mechanics here. Fluff is absolutely a thing - sidebar fiction, chapter start fiction, etc. is all over RPGs. The example of how to play generally has some real fluff to it, etc. That doesn't mean that all rules must be quantitative though, which brings me to qualitative mechanics. Outside D&D these are incredibly well established as a thing; nobody is going to seriously argue that the Aspects listed on a Fate character sheet aren't mechanics. D&D has historically used these rarely enough that they're not really embedded in the consciousness of the playerbase, but they're there. Alignment is a qualitative mechanic. Inspiration is a qualitative mechanic. And yes, the restrictions on armor use for druids is a qualitative mechanic.

[Darth Ultron]

Seems like a lot of 5e is written in a fuzzy manner like that.

Really all of D&D ever was always written like this....and many other games too.

As a D&D book is a rulebook...technically it has no fluff and all crunch: but it really does not matter as the DM gets to decide what is ''real and true" in their game.

Page 5 says X, and page 44 says Y. The DM says that in their game, it's X. DM B says it is Y, and DM C says it's Lollypop. Nobody is ''right", but nobody is ''wrong".

There are no Official Rules Rulings. If there were...they would just be Rules. Sure the books are full of typos and mistakes, but that is a whole other issue.

And..even if you want to say that ''guy that works at D&D is a Rule Lord"...well, others can still just ignore him and play the game however they want.

[Red Fel]

I think Ninja Prawn's response was the most accurate. Notwithstanding the fact that you called it "Non responsive," PhoenixPhyre, I think it was extremely responsive. To wit:


I can't see anything in black and white, at least not in the PHB. Obviously the line between fluff and crunch has been blurred since 4e; there's no firm partition any more. But like, it doesn't take to much to separate it out. The fluff is almost always presented first, as in:


Darkvision. Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern colour in darkness, only shades of grey.

The magenta section is clearly fluff, because it has no mechanical meaning. It's purely descriptive and can be freely changed or deleted without having any impact on the game (though it could have roleplaying implications). For example, if I change dwarves to be nocturnal forest-dwellers, that's a re-fluffing that doesn't affect their mechanics at all.

That last paragraph, I think, gives the most definitive explanation as to whether a line of text is fluff or crunch.

Let me back up. If you come into this thinking that everything is crunch, unless it is specifically fluff, which is what you claim in the OP, then you've already basically made your decision. Nowhere do the books say, "Hey, this next part is fluff." At least, not with specificity. However, if you instead approach it from a neutral position - text is either fluff or crunch, to be determined contextually - then Ninja Prawn's position makes sense if you summarize it as follows:

Language is fluff if it has no mechanical meaning, and its removal would have no impact on mechanics.

In the example above, the language, "Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions," is precisely that. It's filler. You could remove it and the description of the ability would still be mechanically accurate and complete. Therefore, that sentence is fluff. By contrast, the sentence that follows it, "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light," has mechanical impact. It describes the operation and modification of a character's line-of-sight mechanics. To remove it would change the description of the ability in a mechanical way. It is therefore crunch.

[LudicSavant]

I think Ninja Prawn's response was the most accurate. Notwithstanding the fact that you called it "Non responsive," PhoenixPhyre, I think it was extremely responsive. To wit:



That last paragraph, I think, gives the most definitive explanation as to whether a line of text is fluff or crunch.

Let me back up. If you come into this thinking that everything is crunch, unless it is specifically fluff, which is what you claim in the OP, then you've already basically made your decision. Nowhere do the books say, "Hey, this next part is fluff." At least, not with specificity. However, if you instead approach it from a neutral position - text is either fluff or crunch, to be determined contextually - then Ninja Prawn's position makes sense if you summarize it as follows:

Language is fluff if it has no mechanical meaning, and its removal would have no impact on mechanics.

In the example above, the language, "Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions," is precisely that. It's filler. You could remove it and the description of the ability would still be mechanically accurate and complete. Therefore, that sentence is fluff. By contrast, the sentence that follows it, "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light," has mechanical impact. It describes the operation and modification of a character's line-of-sight mechanics. To remove it would change the description of the ability in a mechanical way. It is therefore crunch.

Yeah, that's about how I see it, too.

As Red Fel points out (and as I was trying to communicate earlier), the neutral position isn't "it's crunch, not fluff, unless the book says otherwise." It's "text is either fluff or crunch, to be determined contextually."

[EggKookoo]

I have yet to find it for anything in 5e. Of course a DM (or player, with DM permission) can alter anything, but that goes equally well for "rules". In the absence of such a textual authority, there can be no RAW distinction--anything written must be evaluated as part of the rules unless it specifically exempts itself.

I'm confused why the DM (or a player with DM approval) can't simply declare fluff to be non-binding, either in a blanket fashion or in particular cases, based on the numerous places in the PHB and DMG that lets the DM customize the game.

Why are you looking for something specifically referring to fluff? If, as you say, by RAW fluff is considered "rules," and by RAW the DM can alter the rules, it follows the DM can alter the fluff specifically (and a player can as long as the DM is cool with it).

What else do you need?

[Unoriginal]

I'm confused why the DM (or a player with DM approval) can't simply declare fluff to be non-binding, either in a blanket fashion or in particular cases, based on the numerous places in the PHB and DMG that lets the DM customize the game.

Why are you looking for something specifically referring to fluff? If, as you say, by RAW fluff is considered "rules," and by RAW the DM can alter the rules, it follows the DM can alter the fluff specifically (and a player can as long as the DM is cool with it).

What else do you need?

PhoenixPhyre is asking if there any in-text fluff vs crunch separation that'd allow someone who pretend to be following RAW to discard one part of the rules as "not important because it's fluff".

Any rule can be declared non-binding by the DM. But people who do RAW arguments often argue that RAW is what the rules are without DM intervention. So the question is: if you claim to follow RAW, is there any part of the rules that separate fluff from crunch (like the case was in 4e) to allow one to discard the fluff parts as non-rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

One of the most explicit instances showing fluff and crunch are the same is the Druid's "doesn't wear metal armors" feature. I agree with you, and yet I wish we had not raised this from the dead ...
Except it's not. We have another thread for that conversation, won't you please take it there, or start another one on that topic?


From a RAW perspective, the restriction on metal armors and druids is exactly as binding as the rule prohibiting a druid from wildshaping into a tarrasque. The rules themselves make no distinction between "mechanics" and "narrative fluff." They're all "rules". Yes.
From my personal perspective, there are no rules except what a table agrees to abide by. ...Rule 0 is not so much an exception, but it's a reminder of the underlying reality--that the text does not have primacy. The table and its decisions as a whole do. That is very sensible.
It says druids will not.

Mechanics =/= rules. There is nothing in the text that claims such a thing, nor is such a claim even meaningful in this edition. Indeed, but we really need a separate thread for this never ending battle on that one little issue ... :smallfrown:


And you still haven't responded to the original request, which was for evidence. I see people claiming a distinction, but no one has provided a citation. Which is what RAW demands. Live by RAW, die by RAW. I fought the RAW and the RAW run ...

Exactly. In 5e, as in many and even most RPGs, "fluff vs crunch" is an artificial distinction drawn by the person trying to make the artificial distinction.
And now our resident attorney will file his brief ...

A druid *will not* wear metal armor. So a person that willingly wears metal armor is not a druid. Which is bound to get a rise out of someone ...

If I understand correctly, PhoenixPyre is arguing that there's no distinction between rules and flavor, unless the book explicitly tells you that there is. ... I think this calls for a smidgeon of common sense. But not during a discussion on an internet forum. That requires other human characteristics. :smallcool:

No, but there is a DM in the rules. And Druids will not wear metal armor You wear it, and you're no longer a druid. Reference to the DM being the arbiter is on page 6 of the PHB. It's a rule. :smallbiggrin:
Hmm. The text doesn't say that a druid won't wear metal armor willingly. It says they will not, hard stop. Who knows what kinds of calamitous reality-rending incidents will occur if you try to slip a gauntlet onto a sleeping druid's hand in order to prevent the impossible? As with practical jokes during summer camp, the druid will most likely wet the bed. :smalltongue:

It was done on purpose. They wanted to avoid the whole exact-word-and-legalese circus. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[EggKookoo]

PhoenixPhyre is asking if there any in-text fluff vs crunch separation that'd allow someone who pretend to be following RAW to discard one part of the rules as "not important because it's fluff".

Any rule can be declared non-binding by the DM. But people who do RAW arguments often argue that RAW is what the rules are without DM intervention. So the question is: if you claim to follow RAW, is there any part of the rules that separate fluff from crunch (like the case was in 4e) to allow one to discard the fluff parts as non-rules.

So I don't know if there's any single, simple declaration about it but in the DMG in Chapter 1, under Creating a Campaign, the text goes on at length about how you're encouraged to invent your own setting, with details down to how common magic is, how currency works, what the atmosphere and flavor is like, etc. Fluff is often just an overall term for "the details of how things work in my setting," which would mean it's within the RAW to adjust as necessary. At least for the DM.

That might seem like a weak point to make but frankly it seems appropriate to the question.

[diplomancer]

has there ever been an argument about whether a particular rule is "fluff" or "crunch", when the person arguing the position "it's fluff" did not want the rule to apply to his character or otherwise wanted not to follow the rule (or, to make it more general, to argue that not following this rule is totally ok, and why are you so intent in following this rule?))

interestingly enough, it usually happens when there is a clear mechanical benefit (either in power or versatility) to not following the rule.

So a useful heuristic is this: if people are arguing about whether a particular rule is fluff or crunch, it's crunch.

[JackPhoenix]

And Druids will not wear metal armor You wear it, and you're no longer a druid.

What *are* you, then? You still have all the abilities of a druid, and you're still wearing metal armor.

Again, the rules don't actually prevent a druid from putting on metal armor.

Devotion paladins don't lie or cheat... but they still can, and if they do, they are no longer devotion paladins, and the rules actually tell you that and explain what happens. That is not the case for druids wearing metal armor.

In 3.5, druids were actually prevented from wearing metal armor, and when they put it on, there were consequences for doing so. There still wasn't anything actually stopping them from putting on metal armor, and they haven't stopped being druids if they did, they just lost access to some abilities. But nothing like that happens in 5e.

[EggKookoo]

What *are* you, then? You still have all the abilities of a druid, and you're still wearing metal armor.

Obviously you're a Drood.

BTW, since the "will not wear metal armor" is a condition under the Proficiencies property, it means a Druid is not proficient with metal armor even if it would otherwise be eligible. Of course this brings up another question: is a multiclass fighter/druid actually a fighter/druid when wearing metal armor?

[Vorpalchicken]

I'm very open to refluffing but the Druid not wearing metal armor isn't fluff. It's a hard rule. Otherwise it wouldn't be brought up in the multiclassing rules section of the PHB.

I'm not saying that if, say, a Druid is forced to wear it he will cease to be a Druid. But the Druid will remove the armor at the first opportunity. If you've built a fighter/druid, work with your DM to see what fantasy non-metal heavy armor might be available. There are plenty of examples of low level magic items of this sort in AL for example.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll be clear and brief. The idea that crunch and rules are synonymous is wrong and causes lots of problems for the game. RAW as used on these forums is an illusion, an attempt to pass off a particular interpretation of the text as somehow privileged and special. It's not. The text is but one source of "rules", and has no intrinsic extra weight. And RAW is worse--it cherry picks which text to use and which to leave behind as "fluff".

Edit: and as to what the default is, my connection is that asking that question presumes too much. It presumes a distinction that has no support that anyone has been able to provide. And yes, if you accept that the text has primacy, you're stuck with a lot of bad results. That's because you made the mistake of granting the text power it never asked for or was designed for.

[EggKookoo]

If you've built a fighter/druid, work with your DM to see what fantasy non-metal heavy armor might be available. There are plenty of examples of low level magic items of this sort in AL for example.

A monk can wear armor (and retain the benefits of Unarmored Defense), as long as the "armor" is decorative and doesn't provide a mechanical benefit to AC. Like, costume armor that's really paper mache, perhaps for a stage performance or the equivalent of cosplay. Likewise, the druid not wearing metal armor is flavor text if the druid can get armor made out of something that, mechanically, is identical to wearing metal armor.

[ad_hoc]

Druids and armour is crystal clear.

In a broader sense, if you think all that matters in the game is "crunch" you really should just go play a strategy game. There are lots out there that are very good.

The rules are designed story/narrative first. You can't understand the game if you throw out the story.

[Xetheral]

So the question is: if you claim to follow RAW, is there any part of the rules that separate fluff from crunch (like the case was in 4e) to allow one to discard the fluff parts as non-rules.

How is the answer to that question in any way useful? The only thing an answer would provide is dubious support to one side or the other in an argument over how accurate someone is when they claim to follow RAW.

If someone claims to follow RAW, and via discussion I discover that they appear to mean something different by that label than I would expect, I would simply ask questions to discover what it means to them. It's not the end of the world for the statement "I follow RAW" to contain some ambiguity.

[Zalabim]

There is no such distinction, except in the head of certain posters. It's a false dichotomy in every edition of 5e except 4e, where it was made explicit.

The rules are the rules. Some are role-playing rules, some are world rules, some are variant or optional rules, some are combat rules, some are resolution rules. Many blend some combination of those. Some are more easily modifiable. Some are vague and imprecise. Some are pretty obviously descriptive or examples, but even then can contain things that will affect gameplay directly in a rules-like fashion, if you will.

For an example of the last, each class and race has a section that is heavy on descriptive / example text. But even then, the section describing Monk Ki (for example) affects the how a DM will treat Ki when the question comes up as to if it is magic, and how it interacts with other rules based on if things are magic.
I think it would be very illustrative for the argument in general, but I've definitely used it in specific about the monk, to look at the System Reference Document and see that it has no descriptive text. No fluff. If the rule is in the SRD, any part of the PHB rule that the SRD omitted is (probably) fluff.

has there ever been an argument about whether a particular rule is "fluff" or "crunch", when the person arguing the position "it's fluff" did not want the rule to apply to his character or otherwise wanted not to follow the rule (or, to make it more general, to argue that not following this rule is totally ok, and why are you so intent in following this rule?))

interestingly enough, it usually happens when there is a clear mechanical benefit (either in power or versatility) to not following the rule.

So a useful heuristic is this: if people are arguing about whether a particular rule is fluff or crunch, it's crunch.
Unfortunately, people often do argue for a mechanical benefit because of fluff. A quick example might be someone arguing for better vision in a dark area 100' away even though they have Darkvision 60', because the first line of darkvision just says 'you have better vision in dark areas,' and if you don't give me better vision than a human in this case, then you're ignoring the rule for darkvision about me having better vision in dark areas.

[diplomancer]

the answer to that argument is "you do have better vision than a human, you can see 60' further away than he can, that is better and if you dont think it is I will limit your darkvision to 15', which is still better than a human", not to try to argue that "you have better vision in dark areas is fluff", because it is actually not.

[Kadesh]

I'll be clear and brief. The idea that crunch and rules are synonymous is wrong and causes lots of problems for the game. RAW as used on these forums is an illusion, an attempt to pass off a particular interpretation of the text as somehow privileged and special. It's not. The text is but one source of "rules", and has no intrinsic extra weight. And RAW is worse--it cherry picks which text to use and which to leave behind as "fluff".

Edit: and as to what the default is, my connection is that asking that question presumes too much. It presumes a distinction that has no support that anyone has been able to provide. And yes, if you accept that the text has primacy, you're stuck with a lot of bad results. That's because you made the mistake of granting the text power it never asked for or was designed for.
[Citation Needed]

[qube]

TL;DR: RAW is a myth, as the english language is vague on it's own.

When you confuse fluff with rules, you'll be stuck with rules that still need Rule 0 - the DM as arbiter - to decide which way to interprete it.

-----------------------


Which is what RAW demands. Live by RAW, die by RAW.on druid armor / metal armor / RAW : armors that are "made of metal":

... when is an armor "made of metal"?

Surely my car isn't "made of rubber", or my computer "made of gold" - dispite a car containing rubber (namely its tires) and a computer containing gold (as conductor in chips).

Sorted by certainty it is made of metal

metal
Half Plate. consists of shaped metal plates that cover most of the wearer’s body.

metal, worn with
Chain Shirt. Made of interlocking metal rings, a chain shirt is worn between layers of clothing or leather.
Breastplate. This armor consists of a fitted metal chest piece worn with supple leather.

metal, includes nonmetal
- Chain Mail. Made of interlocking metal rings, chain mail includes a layer of quilted fabric ...
- Plate. Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. A suit of plate includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and thick layers of padding underneath the armor ... (Plate is made from metal, a suit of plate is composite)

contains metal and non-metal
Splint. This armor is made of narrow vertical strips of metal riveted to a backing of leather

contains non-metal and metal
Scale Mail. This armor consists of a coat and leggings (and perhaps a separate skirt) of leather covered with overlapping pieces of metal

metal not mentioned
Ring Mail. This armor is leather armor with heavy rings sewn into it.
Studded Leather. Made from tough but flexible leather, studded leather is reinforced with close-set rivets or spikes.

metal not mentioned - as expected
(padded, leather, hide)


Yet RAW does not specify where to draw the line ...

Hmm. The text doesn't say that a druid won't wear metal armor willingly. It says they will not, hard stop. Who knows what kinds of calamitous reality-rending incidents will occur if you try to slip a gauntlet onto a sleeping druid's hand in order to prevent the impossible?... is it specified what your level of intelligence must be before you can figure out which armor is metal and which isn't? In fact, if your character comes from an area where he's never seen metal (ex. a Chult tribe at forehand untouched by civilisation) - it doesn't matter what - as the entire concept of metal would be unknown to 'm.

And then, the argument can be made, that if your druid doesn't know it's metal, it no longer falls under doing something willingly.

Again, as with made of rubber: I wouldn't willingly severly harm other people - yet the butterfly effect nots that I'm possibly am.

[Kadesh]

{Scrubbed}

[Unoriginal]

'Written rules are myth'

"Written rules" and "rules as written" aren't the same thing.

Everyone acknowledge there are rules written. "Rules As Written" is a supposed "rules without interpretation or DM intervention" state that some people claim to have their arguments based on.

[Kadesh]

"Written rules" and "rules as written" aren't the same thing.

Everyone acknowledge there are rules written. "Rules As Written" is a supposed "rules without interpretation or DM intervention" state that some people claim to have their arguments based on.
You're going to have to back up your argument a lot stronger than that to suggest that the rules as they written is a different beast from the rules written down.

[EggKookoo]

Druids and metal armor aside, what are some actual, concrete, at-table problems people have run into as a result of fluff/crunch confusion? I suspect most of them can be solved with a little dash of common sense or, perhaps, re-framing from a more pure crunch perspective (such as I said upthread where it's irrelevant from a crunch perspective that a druid can't wear metal armor if the druid can replace it with something mechanically identical).

Without some grounding in actual at-table problems, this could easily slide into a kind of anti-RAW dogma.

[qube]

'Written rules are myth'

My god this site at times. Never seen such pretentiousness.Sorry mate, but misintrepreting my words, and instead of asking for clarification (or just reading the full text), just assuming you're right, that's pretentiousness.

Oppositely, the quote "RAW is a myth" - is actually an old quote, from back in the 3rd edition days, from the WotC forums.


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.

~~ Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization

[Unoriginal]

You're going to have to back up your argument a lot stronger than that to suggest that the rules as they written is a different beast from the rules written down.

*sigh*.

You're one to talk about pretentiousness.

"Written rules" = the fact that rules are written. People know the rules are written, they can read.

"Rules As Written" = the claim to follow the rules as they are written in an objective fashion and without interpretation. Which, as demonstrated in this very thread, is often an inaccurate claim as there is always a layer of subjective interpretation. For ex: the Druid's class feature "a druid will not wear metal armor" has been interpreted by people who claims to follow the RAW as "even if a druid wears a metal armor, nothing happen" because there is no rules on what happen should a druid wear a metal armor, despite the fact that according to what is written a druid will not wear metal armors, at all.

You pretended that people said there was no written rules, which is different from saying that it is impossible to follow the rules in a 100% objective fashion.


Druids and metal armor aside, what are some actual, concrete, at-table problems people have run into as a result of fluff/crunch confusion? I suspect most of them can be solved with a little dash of common sense or, perhaps, re-framing from a more pure crunch perspective (such as I said upthread where it's irrelevant from a crunch perspective that a druid can't wear metal armor if the druid can replace it with something mechanically identical).

I've seen people claim that the gesture described in the Burning Hands text meant you needed to have both hands free to cast this spell, and that Power Word Kill required you to talk even if you used Subtle Metamagic because the text says you have to speak the power word. Also there is a debate if the verbal component of the spell Suggestion is "tell the suggestion" or "do a bunch of mumbo-jumbo incantations, then tell the suggestion".

Yes, as you said, those things can be solved with "a little dash of common sense".

More specifically, though, there is no fluff/crunch confusion because there is no real separation between the two. All is a question of how the DM will rule the instance.



Without some grounding in actual at-table problems, this could easily slide into a kind of anti-RAW dogma.

Well, that's some impressive fear mongering and bad-connotation you have here, pal. There is no "anti-RAW dogma" because there is no actual unalterable RAW. The game tells you to modifies things as you wish and come up with your own interpretations.

[Zalabim]

Druids and metal armor aside, what are some actual, concrete, at-table problems people have run into as a result of fluff/crunch confusion? I suspect most of them can be solved with a little dash of common sense or, perhaps, re-framing from a more pure crunch perspective (such as I said upthread where it's irrelevant from a crunch perspective that a druid can't wear metal armor if the druid can replace it with something mechanically identical).

Without some grounding in actual at-table problems, this could easily slide into a kind of anti-RAW dogma.

Another example (from this thread) is whether all uses of Ki are magical [they are not] based on (mis)reading the fluff text in the introduction to the monk class. This applies to whether magic resistance means a creature has advantage on saves against stunning strike, and whether flurry of blows can be used while in a beholder's antimagic cone.

[Unoriginal]

Another example (from this thread) is whether all uses of Ki are magical [they are not] based on (mis)reading the fluff text in the introduction to the monk class. This applies to whether magic resistance means a creature has advantage on saves against stunning strike, and whether flurry of blows can be used while in a beholder's antimagic cone.

And that is easily solved when one apply the "is this magical" test from the FAQ, which is pretty common sense.

[Kadesh]

No, Unoriginal, I am not being pretentious to say that the rules that are written are the rules that are written. Written rules is not a general rules are written, but the rules that are written.

Trying to draw a distinction between the rules that are written and talking about the rules that are written and say that one is different than the other is absurd.

[EggKookoo]

Well, that's some impressive fear mongering and bad-connotation you have here, pal.

I love the phrase "fear mongering." It's utterly useless, yets is often used to shut down opponents. Why do you insist on shame-silencing people?

(For those playing along at home, the above line is irony.)

I'm just keying off of: "RAW as used on these forums is an illusion, an attempt to pass off a particular interpretation of the text as somehow privileged. It's not." This is a clear statement that could easily be taken as intending to undermine RAW-based arguments. That is, since RAW includes fluff, if you don't adhere to fluff, you can't claim to adhere to RAW, so your crunch-based RAW arguments are invalid or at least weakened. By declaring that fluff, which by definition is not crunch, is bound by the same interpretation as crunch, it creates a kind of false equivalency where not adhering to the FAW (fluff as written) is akin to not adhering to the CAW (crunch as written). Asking where the text in the rulebook is that allows you to separate the two implies that there is no such text. I have answered this earlier in the form of "it's plastered all over the DMG" but that didn't seem to satisfy.

I generally agree with PhoenixPhyre's position on things. I'm not sure where the need to create a rules-based distinction between fluff and crunch comes from. That's why I asked for real examples instead of "oh, by George you're right, the PHB doesn't have a specific line separating the two." This is especially silly considering the DMG spends page upon page explaining how to create and modify your game setting, which is where all the fluff lives anyway.

I mean, I choose not to allow dwarves in my game because per the DMG I created a setting where they don't exist. Am I violating RAW? If you say yes, cite the page where it says so. If I'm not violating RAW, cite the page that says I'm allowed to exclude them (chances are this will also be the place where the separation of fluff and crunch is explained).


There is no "anti-RAW dogma" because there is no actual unalterable RAW. The game tells you to modifies things as you wish and come up with your own interpretations.

That's a distraction. We all know by RAW DMs are allowed and encouraged to change things. That's not what this is about.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I love the phrase "fear mongering." It's utterly useless, yets is often used to shut down opponents. Why do you insist on shame-silencing people?

(For those playing along at home, the above line is irony.)

I'm just keying off of: "RAW as used on these forums is an illusion, an attempt to pass off a particular interpretation of the text as somehow privileged. It's not." This is a clear statement that could easily be taken as intending to undermine RAW-based arguments. That is, since RAW includes fluff, if you don't adhere to fluff, you can't claim to adhere to RAW, so your crunch-based RAW arguments are invalid or at least weakened. By declaring that fluff, which by definition is not crunch, is bound by the same interpretation as crunch, it creates a kind of false equivalency where not adhering to the FAW (fluff as written) is akin to not adhering to the CAW (crunch as written). Asking where the text in the rulebook is that allows you to separate the two implies that there is no such text. I have answered this earlier in the form of "it's plastered all over the DMG" but that didn't seem to satisfy.


You're accepting that there is a difference between fluff and crunch, that one is mutable and the other is not. That's not born out by anything other than custom. My whole point is that fluff is just as "hard" as crunch, and that what we call rules aren't really binding things. Both the descriptions and the mechanics are merely starting points for conversations.

But if you believe in RAW as a privileged interpretation, you can't do this. You must (to be consistent) accept it all as totally binding. If only the text matters, then only the text matters. You can't decide to throw some stuff out and keep others without destroying the whole idea of RAW. You need textual authorization. And no, the DMG saying you can vary stuff doesn't count, because by varying things you're already beyond RAW. And you are specifically authorized to vary "crunch" (hard mechanics) as well. So that doesn't say anything.

That's why I say RAW is an illusion. It's a particular interpretation that masquerades as something special. In order to actually be meaningful, you have to discard the text where convenient. There is no fluff/crunch distinction. There is only text and context. All of it has exactly the same standing as "rules". It's all persuasive authority, not binding authority.

For the record, this whole thread was prompted by someone saying that "steed" as used in find steed was just fluff and could be ignored. But I've seen it throughout for several editions--people saying that roleplaying restrictions (such as 3e's PrC requirements) were just fluff and could be ignored, the idea that setting-specific restrictions (and changes) were only fluff unless boiled down to mechanical elements, heck, the whole druid armor thing or create thrall. So it does come up, usually when a RAW-warrior wants to duck an absurdity caused by his position. "That's just fluff" is isomorphic to "I don't want to follow that rule", at least in my experience.



I generally agree with PhoenixPhyre's position on things. I'm not sure where the need to create a rules-based distinction between fluff and crunch comes from. That's why I asked for real examples instead of "oh, by George you're right, the PHB doesn't have a specific line separating the two." This is especially silly considering the DMG spends page upon page explaining how to create and modify your game setting, which is where all the fluff lives anyway.

I mean, I choose not to allow dwarves in my game because per the DMG I created a setting where they don't exist. Am I violating RAW? If you say yes, cite the page where it says so. If I'm not violating RAW, cite the page that says I'm allowed to exclude them (chances are this will also be the place where the separation of fluff and crunch is explained).


Setting rules are not fluff in any meaningful way. They're just as binding as any mechanical element--in fact, I'd consider them more binding. If there are no fey in your world, summon woodland creatures cannot summon fey, no matter what the spell says. Setting details override mechanical details whenever they're in conflict.

And as far as "deviating from RAW", that's a meaningless statement. Because RAW does not exist as a thing. That's the whole point. There are no binding rules found in the books. There are only conversation starters for rule development at an individual table. So if your table says "yes, there are dwarves" then you have a choice. Either include dwarves or don't play. What's written is absolutely, totally, completely, 100% meaningless here except as a place to start. Many things won't change (because they work fine the way they're written). That doesn't mean they're binding in and of themselves, merely that we've accepted them into our canon of table rules.

You might say that in 5e D&D, everything is a house rule. Even basic resolution mechanics. Because everything must be accepted by the table or else it has no binding effect. You can't weaponize rules--you can't tell someone at a different table that they're "breaking the rules" unless you understand exactly what rules they're using. And deviating from the book is the norm, not the exception. It's the design intent. And I have designer quotes to back that up.



That's a distraction. We all know by RAW DMs are allowed and encouraged to change things. That's not what this is about.

If by RAW DMs (and tables) are encouraged to change things without limit, then there is no RAW in any meaningful way.

As a side note, a common statement is that "without RAW, we'd have nothing to discuss." But that's wrong. We can still discuss rule-sets and consequences of differing rules (ie if you change to 3d6, what happens; if you allow flanking bonuses, what happens, etc), we just can't "win" the arguments (not that we could anyway). You can still cite chapter and verse, but that's persuasive evidence (hey, the designers felt that way as well), not definitive evidence (the law says). I think our discussions would be much more productive, helpful, and less acrimonious were we to banish all thought of RAW as some independent, objective thing and just get down to the necessary business of interpreting and applying the text.

[Unoriginal]

No, Unoriginal, I am not being pretentious to say that the rules that are written are the rules that are written. Written rules is not a general rules are written, but the rules that are written.

Trying to draw a distinction between the rules that are written and talking about the rules that are written and say that one is different than the other is absurd.

This is utter nonsense. "Rules that are written" is not the same as "rules as they are written". One state the medium in which the information is conducted, the other address what the information is. It's like saying that obeying a law to the letter is the same as obeying a law written with letters.

When people say "following RAW", they don't mean "following rules that are written", but "following rules as they are written literally, without interpretation."


I love the phrase "fear mongering." It's utterly useless, yets is often used to shut down opponents.

It is not useless, although I'd admit it is often stating the obvious. Claiming that X is going to lead to "anti-Y dogma" is fear-mongering, as it is describing a situation pro-Y people fear in a way that will make them support anti-X .


Why do you insist on shame-silencing people?

(For those playing along at home, the above line is irony.)

Well, since it's irony, do you wish for me to address it anyway?



I'm just keying off of: "RAW as used on these forums is an illusion, an attempt to pass off a particular interpretation of the text as somehow privileged. It's not." This is a clear statement that could easily be taken as intending to undermine RAW-based arguments. That is, since RAW includes fluff, if you don't adhere to fluff, you can't claim to adhere to RAW, so your crunch-based RAW arguments are invalid or at least weakened. By declaring that fluff, which by definition is not crunch, is bound by the same interpretation as crunch, it creates a kind of false equivalency where not adhering to the FAW (fluff as written) is akin to not adhering to the CAW (crunch as written). Asking where the text in the rulebook is that allows you to separate the two implies that there is no such text.

The idea of the OP is, as far as I can tell, to say "RAW does not separate fluff and crunch, so if you ignore parts of the rules because 'it's fluff', then you cannot claim you are following RAW"

You could base your argument on the crunch only and ignore the fluff, but the game not making the distinction between the two and both are equally rules, then you are not following RAW, but CAW.


I have answered this earlier in the form of "it's plastered all over the DMG" but that didn't seem to satisfy.

If it is plastered all over the DMG, then could you provide a few quotes which you deem the most explicit to confirm it, please?




I generally agree with PhoenixPhyre's position on things. I'm not sure where the need to create a rules-based distinction between fluff and crunch comes from. That's why I asked for real examples instead of "oh, by George you're right, the PHB doesn't have a specific line separating the two." This is especially silly considering the DMG spends page upon page explaining how to create and modify your game setting, which is where all the fluff lives anyway.

I mean, I choose not to allow dwarves in my game because per the DMG I created a setting where they don't exist. Am I violating RAW? If you say yes, cite the page where it says so. If I'm not violating RAW, cite the page that says I'm allowed to exclude them (chances are this will also be the place where the separation of fluff and crunch is explained).

You're not violating RAW because the rules say it's fine to modify the rules. It's rulings over rules, it's decisions over following the legalese blindly, it's "modify whatever you want, be it the rules or the setting" over "the book says you're wrong".






That's a distraction. We all know by RAW DMs are allowed and encouraged to change things. That's not what this is about.

Indeed. So do we agree that an "anti-RAW dogma" cannot exist, then?

[EggKookoo]

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post by snipping it. I just want to keep things focused.


Setting rules are not fluff in any meaningful way. They're just as binding as any mechanical element--in fact, I'd consider them more binding. If there are no fey in your world, summon woodland creatures cannot summon fey, no matter what the spell says. Setting details override mechanical details whenever they're in conflict.

Ok, but the thing is, the DMG encourages you to create your own setting. It's expected at most tables to build your own setting. In my many years of playing and DMing, I've only played in actual FR once, when I ran a couple newbies through the starter set to get them acquainted with the game. Now that they are, I plan to migrate their characters over to my homebrew setting. Other than that intro session, I've never once played or run in a published setting. I have and I continue to plan to use published settings for content ideas, but they get heavily modified.

While it provides options for you to do so, the DMG does not encourage you to tinker with the mechanics. It cautions you against doing so, in fact, by suggesting that you learn the RAW mechanics first, and then only change them when needed or if you're very experienced, or you're trying something new or experimental. That's because changing the setting around (and more pertinently changing the fluff around) usually has no implications for balance. The game still works the same way. Fluff/setting amount to skinning a computer application or changing the fonts for your OS. The OS is still working the same way. But changing the mechanics is like tinkering with the application's functionality, which can easily cause catastrophic problems later than can undo everything you've built. Whereas if reskinning causes issues, they're typically easily accounted for.

Also: "If there are no fey in your world, summon woodland creatures cannot summon fey, no matter what the spell says."

I'd argue the spell continues to function the same way (unless as DM you break RAW by altering its text). Summon woodland creatures will summon available fey -- it's just that there are no fey available. The spell didn't change, the circumstances changed. I mean what happens if you cast while in the Astral Plane or on a plane with no fey? That's really no different than using true sight to detect an illusion but there are no illusions available. The spell didn't fail to work and it wasn't functioning differently.

At the same time I agree that if you change fluff, you should consider its implications on crunch. That's just sensible. But based on how the DMG treats them, fluff and crunch have different weight.

[EggKookoo]

If it is plastered all over the DMG, then could you provide a few quotes which you deem the most explicit to confirm it, please?

Deep inside, way down on page 4:

"Every DM is the creator of his or her own campaign world. Whether you invent a world, adapt a world from a favorite movie or novel, or use a published setting for the D&D game, you make that world your own over the course of a campaign."

I mean, I know it's in the obscure "Introduction" section that you're not expected to read...

If you slog through this stuff to the next paragraph, you'll see:

"Even if you're using an established world such as the Forgotten Realms, your campaign takes place in a sort of mirror universe of the official setting where Forgotten Realms novels, game products, and digital games are assumed to take place. The world is yours to change as you see fit and yours to modify as you explore the consequences of the players' actions."

And eventually many, many sentences later:

"Part 1 of this book is all about inventing your world."

For context, "Part 1" is a scant 68 pages information on building out your custom setting. I know, I wish they devoted more space to it, but c'est la vie.


Indeed. So do we agree that an "anti-RAW dogma" cannot exist, then?

That's not what I said was the distraction.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post by snipping it. I just want to keep things focused.



Ok, but the thing is, the DMG encourages you to create your own setting. It's expected at most tables to build your own setting. In my many years of playing and DMing, I've only played in actual FR once, when I ran a couple newbies through the starter set to get them acquainted with the game. Now that they are, I plan to migrate their characters over to my homebrew setting. Other than that intro session, I've never once played or run in a published setting. I have and I continue to plan to use published settings for content ideas, but they get heavily modified.

While it provides options for you to do so, the DMG does not encourage you to tinker with the mechanics. It cautions you against doing so, in fact, by suggesting that you learn the RAW mechanics first, and then only change them when needed or if you're very experienced, or you're trying something new or experimental. That's because changing the setting around (and more pertinently changing the fluff around) usually has no implications for balance. The game still works the same way. Fluff/setting amount to skinning a computer application or changing the fonts for your OS. The OS is still working the same way. But changing the mechanics is like tinkering with the application's functionality, which can easily cause catastrophic problems later than can undo everything you've built. Whereas if reskinning causes issues, they're typically easily accounted for.

Also: "If there are no fey in your world, summon woodland creatures cannot summon fey, no matter what the spell says."

I'd argue the spell continues to function the same way (unless as DM you break RAW by altering its text). Summon woodland creatures will summon available fey -- it's just that there are no fey available. The spell didn't change, the circumstances changed. I mean what happens if you cast while in the Astral Plane or on a plane with no fey? That's really no different than using true sight to detect an illusion but there are no illusions available. The spell didn't fail to work and it wasn't functioning differently.

At the same time I agree that if you change fluff, you should consider its implications on crunch. That's just sensible. But based on how the DMG treats them, fluff and crunch have different weight.

You're still assuming a difference that hasn't been shown to exist. The DMG is replete with reminders that following the "crunch" is secondary and that you as a DM should not hesitate to do what's right for your table, rules be damned.

There are certainly parts of the text that are more strongly entangled with others and are thus more dangerous to change. But not all of those are mechanical (have numbers and dice attached), and not all the mechanics are dangerous to change. It's also on a spectrum, not a dichotomy. There's a continuous range from the basic resolution mechanics (which are tightly entangled) to the exact damage done by a particular monster (which is not). Both descriptive and setting material and mechanical bits and bobs fall on this spectrum.

[EggKookoo]

There are certainly parts of the text that are more strongly entangled with others and are thus more dangerous to change. But not all of those are mechanical (have numbers and dice attached), and not all the mechanics are dangerous to change. It's also on a spectrum, not a dichotomy. There's a continuous range from the basic resolution mechanics (which are tightly entangled) to the exact damage done by a particular monster (which is not). Both descriptive and setting material and mechanical bits and bobs fall on this spectrum.

But there are elements that flow directly from the resolution mechanics, and those disconnected from them. While the exact damage done by a particular monster is further along the spectrum than the basic mechanics, if you change the basic mechanics then the damage done by that monster may very well change. But if you fluff wood elves so that they have bunny ears, that's pretty much completely disconnected from the resolution mechanics.

This distinction, I think, is the difference between "rules" and "content" (or crunch and fluff).

[Unoriginal]

Deep inside, way down on page 4:

[...]

I mean, I know it's in the obscure "Introduction" section that you're not expected to read...

[...]

If you slog through this stuff to the next paragraph, you'll see:

[...]

And eventually many, many sentences later

You can keep your sarcasm, I read the books.



"Every DM is the creator of his or her own campaign world. Whether you invent a world, adapt a world from a favorite movie or novel, or use a published setting for the D&D game, you make that world your own over the course of a campaign."

I mean, I know it's in the obscure "Introduction" section that you're not expected to read...

If you slog through this stuff to the next paragraph, you'll see:

"Even if you're using an established world such as the Forgotten Realms, your campaign takes place in a sort of mirror universe of the official setting where Forgotten Realms novels, game products, and digital games are assumed to take place. The world is yours to change as you see fit and yours to modify as you explore the consequences of the players' actions."

And eventually many, many sentences later:

"Part 1 of this book is all about inventing your world."

For context, "Part 1" is a scant 68 pages information on building out your custom setting. I know, I wish they devoted more space to it, but c'est la vie.

And what does anything of it have to do with making fluff less of a rule than crunch, or even separating the two, do tell?

I see nothing that says or suggest "inventing your world is fluff, it's not rules" or anything similar. They just say "make your world your own."

Take the Forgotten Realms. 5e has a book, Storm Coast's Adventures Guide, which both describe the world in a way which explains different possiblities and restrictions than the default setting, such as "Paladins in FR have a patron deity", the Sun/Moon elf distinction, and others.

Among those things, there is the Bladesinger subclass, which has an explicit restriction:


Restriction: Elves Only
Only elves and half-elves can choose the bladesinger arcane tradition. In the world of Faerûn, elves closely guard the secrets of bladesinging.

Your DM can lift this restriction to better suit the campaign. The restriction reflects the story of bladesingers in the Forgotten Realms, but it might not apply to your DM's setting or your DM's version of the Realms.

As you can see, the text acknowledge it's a restriction only here to "[reflects] the story of bladesingers in the Forgotten Realms", and that the DM can modify it if they want, but that doesn't make it any less of a rule. Crunch and fluff are blended, both are rules.




That's not what I said was the distraction.

So do you still maintain that there can be an "anti-RAW dogma"?

[PhoenixPhyre]

But there are elements that flow directly from the resolution mechanics, and those disconnected from them. While the exact damage done by a particular monster is further along the spectrum than the basic mechanics, if you change the basic mechanics then the damage done by that monster may very well change. But if you fluff wood elves so that they have bunny ears, that's pretty much completely disconnected from the resolution mechanics.

This distinction, I think, is the difference between "rules" and "content" (or crunch and fluff).

That doesn't map nicely to what people mean by fluff. The things that are dangerous to change also include some very fluffy things: the idea that fantastic things (those that deviate from Earth norm) are common is pervasive. Altering that requires rewriting a huge amount of the "crunch" (or throwing it out entirely). Same with the idea that there are multiple planes. That has deep connections to very crunchy things. Or the basic concept that the PCs are Adventurers doing adventuring things.

"Difficult to change without knock-on effects" and fluff are orthogonal concepts.

[EggKookoo]

You can keep your sarcasm, I read the books.

So your request to provide quotes was facetious, and you respond with disapproval at sarcasm?


And what does anything of it have to do with making fluff less of a rule than crunch, or even separating the two, do tell?

I see nothing that says or suggest "inventing your world is fluff, it's not rules" or anything similar. They just say "make your world your own."

That's because it's the theme of an entire large section of the book. A section which largely outright declares it's impossible to play in the actual FR. You're playing in your own homebrewed version. If you DM D&D, you have no choice but to run it in a setting of your own creation. No one sentence says this but it permeates the entire section. The book encourages you to customize your setting to your heart's content.

On the other hand, the section on customizing rules is peppered with caution. It gives you tools, but it also advises you to change as little as possible because doing so can break the game, possibly at a fundamental level. The DMG wants you changing mechanics only when you're sure you know what you're doing or are just goofing off to see what will happen.


As you can see, the text acknowledge it's a restriction only here to "[reflects] the story of bladesingers in the Forgotten Realms", and that the DM can modify it if they want, but that doesn't make it any less of a rule. Crunch and fluff are blended, both are rules.

As I said to PhoenixPhyre, the removal of elves and half-elves from your setting doesn't change that mechanic. It's still just as valid as before, it's just that there happen to be no elves or half-elves around. Mechanically, it is literally no different than if elves or half-elves exist but no players choose to play them at the table.


So do you still maintain that there can be an "anti-RAW dogma"?

There can be anti-anything dogmatic thinking. But I understand the confusion. What I meant was anti-RAW-validity dogma, which is a different thing and I apologize for not being more clear.

[EggKookoo]

That doesn't map nicely to what people mean by fluff. The things that are dangerous to change also include some very fluffy things: the idea that fantastic things (those that deviate from Earth norm) are common is pervasive. Altering that requires rewriting a huge amount of the "crunch" (or throwing it out entirely). Same with the idea that there are multiple planes. That has deep connections to very crunchy things. Or the basic concept that the PCs are Adventurers doing adventuring things.

"Difficult to change without knock-on effects" and fluff are orthogonal concepts.

Ok, so we might be operating on different definitions of fluff. Fluff to me is "elves do or do not have bunny ears" or "magic missiles are purple." Or "full plate looks exactly like someone would have actually worn in Renaissance Europe." The existence of planes is definitely crunch. The specific nature and origin of the outer planes is (probably) fluff.

The commonality of fantastic things is fluff unless you can explain how it has bearing on the mechanics? Is it crunch to determine how likely it is to find a magic sword in a dungeon?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, so we might be operating on different definitions of fluff. Fluff to me is "elves do or do not have bunny ears" or "magic missiles are purple." Or "full plate looks exactly like someone would have actually worn in Renaissance Europe." The existence of planes is definitely crunch. The specific nature and origin of the outer planes is (probably) fluff.

The commonality of fantastic things is fluff unless you can explain how it has bearing on the mechanics? Is it crunch to determine how likely it is to find a magic sword in a dungeon?

Without fantastic things, most of the classes and their features have to change, because they're fantastic in the extreme. Without common fantastic things, most of the basic game mechanics are surplus. This bites people who try to use 5e to play a low magic game. It's fluff that imposes severe consequences if you change it. Thus, fluff can't be the things that are easy to change.

[Unoriginal]

So your request to provide quotes was facetious, and you respond with disapproval at sarcasm?

It's not because I've read the book that I know which parts you think are arguments in your favor. I wanted to know which they were.



That's because it's the theme of an entire large section of the book. A section which largely outright declares it's impossible to play in the actual FR. You're playing in your own homebrewed version. If you DM D&D, you have no choice but to run it in a setting of your own creation. No one sentence says this but it permeates the entire section. The book encourages you to customize your setting to your heart's content.

On the other hand, the section on customizing rules is peppered with caution. It gives you tools, but it also advises you to change as little as possible because doing so can break the game, possibly at a fundamental level. The DMG wants you changing mechanics only when you're sure you know what you're doing or are just goofing off to see what will happen.

So your argument is "the book tell you to be careful about modifying mechanics, while they're encouraging you to modify settings". But if you decide to chance something in your setting, it can have a mechanical effect.

If you decide to remove dwarves and to give all gnomes +2 in CON because in your world the "tough, subterranean humanoid species" in your setting are gnomes, not dwarves, you are modifying the mechanics for setting reasons, it is both a "fluff" and "crunch" modification according to you, correct?

What if you decide to say "humans cannot be Wizards in my setting"? Is that fluff, crunch, or both?



As I said to PhoenixPhyre, the removal of elves and half-elves from your setting doesn't change that mechanic. It's still just as valid as before, it's just that there happen to be no elves or half-elves around. Mechanically, it is literally no different than if elves or half-elves exist but no players choose to play them at the table.

But you do acknowledge that this mechanical restriction only exist because of the FR lore, yes?



The commonality of fantastic things is fluff unless you can explain how it has bearing on the mechanics? Is it crunch to determine how likely it is to find a magic sword in a dungeon?

Well, there are tables that indicates how it's likely to find X magic item in a treasure. Are those crunch, or fluff?

And if you don't use those tables because in your world, magic items are far more/less common, are you "breaking/violating/not following RAW"?

[EggKookoo]

Without fantastic things, most of the classes and their features have to change, because they're fantastic in the extreme. Without common fantastic things, most of the basic game mechanics are surplus. This bites people who try to use 5e to play a low magic game. It's fluff that imposes severe consequences if you change it. Thus, fluff can't be the things that are easy to change.

I think one thing is true: if you make a change that alters the basic mechanics, it's by definition a crunch change.

However, making a setting change that renders a mechanic irrelevant is not the same thing as changing the mechanic. If a mechanic says you have a swim speed, and there's no swimmable water environment in your setting, you haven't changed the mechanic. You've just changed the circumstances where you'd be able to apply it.


So your argument is "the book tell you to be careful about modifying mechanics, while they're encouraging you to modify settings". But if you decide to chance something in your setting, it can have a mechanical effect.

If you decide to remove dwarves and to give all gnomes +2 in CON because in your world the "tough, subterranean humanoid species" in your setting are gnomes, not dwarves, you are modifying the mechanics for setting reasons, it is both a "fluff" and "crunch" modification according to you, correct?

You've just described a setting change (no dwarves) and a mechanic change (gnomes +2 Con). So yes, it's both. But they are two separate things, right? Removing dwarves doesn't imply gnomes get a Con bonus. You did them independently (as part of a larger "single" change perhaps, but that's kind of beside the point -- and before you say it's not beside the point, remember you don't have to do both, you can just opt to remove dwarves).


What if you decide to say "humans cannot be Wizards in my setting"? Is that fluff, crunch, or both?

Both. I'd be modifying either the human racial stats or the wizard stats to accomplish this, so that's the crunch. Removing humans from the game world is the fluff.

Edit: Sorry, misread. For some reason I confused that with removing dwarves above. Explaining why humans can't be wizards is fluff.


But you do acknowledge that this mechanical restriction only exist because of the FR lore, yes?

I'm not trying to argue that fluff changes can't have crunch consequences. I'm saying it's not always necessarily so. They are not one and the same even if they may impact each other.

You can make fluff changes that have no crunch impact. Wood elves with bunny ears.

You can, in theory, make crunch changes that have no fluff impact, but it's harder to pull off because the fluff is a little more dependent. If you change a longsword to do 1d8+1 damage by default, that will probably result in more people choosing that weapon, which in turn may inform the flavor of the setting. But I imagine it's possible. Kind of a fun creative exercise actually...


Well, there are tables that indicates how it's likely to find X magic item in a treasure. Are those crunch, or fluff?

Fluff, unless there's a mechanic somewhere I'm unaware of that dictates a number of magic items needed by a character in order to function. As I indicated above, I don't consider a feature that can employ or affect a magic item changed mechanically if the PC with that feature doesn't happen to possess one.

Having a +1 weapon instead of a non-magical version has no crunch impact. It doesn't change the rules or alter any mechanic. It is, in and of itself, an example of a mechanic, but it doesn't change anything.


And if you don't use those tables because in your world, magic items are far more/less common, are you "breaking/violating/not following RAW"?

Aside from the truth that rulings are not RAW violations, no.

"The placement of treasure is left to your discretion. The key is to make sure the players feel rewarded for playing, and that their characters are rewarded for overcoming dangerous challenges."

So use of the tables is explicitly optional. The above is a heavy indicator of DM judgment on handling setting-based content.

[Unoriginal]

Fair enough. I propose we agree to disagree on the things we disagree.



Fluff, unless there's a mechanic somewhere I'm unaware of that dictates a number of magic items needed by a character in order to function.

Well, there is a "mechanic" for that, in a way, and that number is 0. All characters can functions perfectly without magic items (as they were calibrated without magic items).

[PhoenixPhyre]

One other note is that, at least on this forum, "fluff" has a pejorative connotation. It connotes things that are lesser, that only a bad/restrictive DM wouldn't allow you as a player to change at will.

This is very different than things the DM can set but are then fixed. Saying "tieflings cannot be clerics of certain gods" as a matter of setting rules causes cries of "but that's just fluff, how dare you deny my special snowflake character!" Or saying that paladin oaths conflict with warlock pacts. Or any number of other "fluff" things, none of which cause significant mechanical consequences.

[Kadesh]

{Scrubbed}

[Unoriginal]

{Scrubbed}

I'll be curious to read your argument as to why those two distinctive grammatical structures have in fact the same meaning.

Perhaps you should make a separate thread for it, just so more people can see how wrong I am.

[Kadesh]

{Scrubbed}

[EggKookoo]

Fair enough. I propose we agree to disagree on the things we disagree.

Indeed. Apologies for snark. I always approach these things in the spirit of discovery but the hindbrain will have its way.


One other note is that, at least on this forum, "fluff" has a pejorative connotation. It connotes things that are lesser, that only a bad/restrictive DM wouldn't allow you as a player to change at will.

I take fluff seriously but it's also something I give the players a lot of control over. If you want your drow elf to be dark blue instead of black, go for it.

[Unoriginal]

{Scrubbed}

"Rules that are written" is not the same phrase as "rules as they are written". If you're claiming they are, you are incorrect as per the rules of English grammar. `

Trying to frame the argument as if both where literally "the rules that are written" does not work.

If you want to claim that "rules that are written" means the same as "rules as they are written", then please provide an argumentation.

[qube]

{Scrubbed}

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's such a thing as a term of art. These are phrases whose meaning differs in material aspects from the literal meaning of the words when used in particular contents.

RAW is one such term of art. It pretends to be a neutral term for "just the text", but actually is used to mean a specific form of interpretation that picks and chooses which text is rules and which is fluff that doesn't matter. As applied, it also claims to be the unique, objective meaning of the text without interpretation. It claims to be a privileged, special reading.

The text exists. There are "rules" in the text. But that's not what's meant by RAW, not any more. And that special meaning is what I claim is an illusion. Treating the text as some special, binding thing that can be used as a weapon against other people is wrong. It's damaging to the game and to others. The text is one voice in a conversation and not the deciding voice.

[Unoriginal]

Claiming that the text is binding when the text itself says it is not binding is pretty funny.

But also kinda sad.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Claiming that the text is binding when the text itself says it is not binding is pretty funny.

But also kinda sad.

Agreed. RAW as binding rules is forclosed by RAW itself. Yet people keep pushing that canard because they want to control how other people play. That's the cut and dried of it. It's badwrongfun all the way down.

[Pex]

I'll be clear and brief. The idea that crunch and rules are synonymous is wrong and causes lots of problems for the game. RAW as used on these forums is an illusion, an attempt to pass off a particular interpretation of the text as somehow privileged and special. It's not. The text is but one source of "rules", and has no intrinsic extra weight. And RAW is worse--it cherry picks which text to use and which to leave behind as "fluff".

Edit: and as to what the default is, my connection is that asking that question presumes too much. It presumes a distinction that has no support that anyone has been able to provide. And yes, if you accept that the text has primacy, you're stuck with a lot of bad results. That's because you made the mistake of granting the text power it never asked for or was designed for.

This sounds familiar, like someone was able to summarize this in a sentence. It's quotable.

[Kadesh]

{Scrubbed}

[PhoenixPhyre]

This sounds familiar, like someone was able to summarize this in a sentence. It's quotable.

If it is, I have no clue where I saw it. I swear that half my thoughts are really paraphrased quotes...

And if you're referring to your signature, I take strong exception to the inference. Your signature is a malicious misrepresentation and is full on false. It's the exact attitude toward rules that I find totally toxic, the attitude that privileges written words of strangers above the needs and desires of friends. It's the attitude that encourages forcing others to play in your preferred way rather than being open to compromise and conversation.

[Unoriginal]

If it is, I have no clue where I saw it. I swear that half my thoughts are really paraphrased quotes...

I think Pex is comparing your post to the derogatory quote in their signature.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think Pex is comparing your post to the derogatory quote in their signature.

I realized that and edited my post. That's a bad faith statement that exemplifies the RAW-supremicist attitude that I hate and think is the epitome of why 3e is so toxic an environment to play in or discuss.

[qube]

{Scrubbed}

[Pex]

Agreed. RAW as binding rules is forclosed by RAW itself. Yet people keep pushing that canard because they want to control how other people play. That's the cut and dried of it. It's badwrongfun all the way down.

It has nothing to do with badwrongfun. It has everything to do with understanding how the game is supposed to work as a matter of discussion. People can like or dislike a rule, but to express that opinion and have people comment it's important to know what the rule is. What adds to the trouble is when a rule is vague enough such that more than one interpretation can be logically made on what the rule means. When someone is in the minority of an interpretation he'll be yelled at, figuratively speaking, and it's not always the case the person is objectively wrong. Still, the vagueness remains with some arguing there is no vagueness at all. It's a mess.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It has nothing to do with badwrongfun. It has everything to do with understanding how the game is supposed to work as a matter of discussion. People can like or dislike a rule, but to express that opinion and have people comment it's important to know what the rule is. What adds to the trouble is when a rule is vague enough such that more than one interpretation can be logically made on what the rule means. When someone is in the minority of an interpretation he'll be yelled at, figuratively speaking, and it's not always the case the person is objectively wrong. Still, the vagueness remains with some arguing there is no vagueness at all. It's a mess.

You're presuming that the "proper" interpretation of the text is

A. Single valued
B. The most important thing.

Nether of those is true. By design. Not by error, not by mistake. By design. There are always, and always have been and always will be multiple valid interpretations of any non trivial text. And the text is one voice among many.

Anyone who yells at another person for having another interpretation of the text is in the wrong, full stop. That's exactly badwrongfun. And that's what a RAW mentality encourages. It says that there is a right and a wrong way to play. That there can only be one right interpretation of the text and that others are lesser. And that's toxic.

Edit: and the fluff/crunch distinction teaches that only numbers matter. That anything not expressed as mechanics is lesser, isn't really rules. And that's full on false. Setting rules are more binding than mechanics. Crunch is always an abstraction, while fluff is the actual narrative rules that really matter.

[Unoriginal]

Well, at least this thread made me reconsider my attitude.

[chokfull]

This is a dumb argument.

RAW doesn't define "fluff", "fluff" is defined by the community, not by the rulebook. A fluff rule is just a rule that has no mechanical (i.e. combat and/or economy) purpose, and therefore can be altered without affecting the balance on the game. Therefore, DM's are "free" to change fluff rules without worrying that they're giving unfair advantages or disadvantages. DM's are, of course, free to change crunch rules, too, but a good DM is less likely to do so without careful consideration.

The druid armor rule is fluff IFF the DM would otherwise just give them fancy magic wood armor. If the magic wood armor is more valuable than regular armor (as it probably should be in most contexts), then the balance of the game is somewhat affected by the rule. If the armor is almost nonexistent and requires a lengthy questline to obtain, then the balance is greatly affected by the rule. The only reason why it's an edge case is because the DM gets to specify how rare items like that are in the world.

DMs generally should allow players to refluff their PCs at will because it just improves player fun and doesn't affect the game balance (by definition). However, no DM is required to allow their hobbit player who's never left the Shire to wield a katana instead of a short sword if that doesn't fit the setting. That's why it's up to DM discretion.

[qube]

You're presuming that the "proper" interpretation of the text is

A. Single valued
B. The most important thing.

Nether of those is true. By design. Not by error, not by mistake. By design. There are always, and always have been and always will be multiple valid interpretations of any non trivial text. And the text is one voice among many.

Anyone who yells at another person for having another interpretation of the text is in the wrong, full stop. That's exactly badwrongfun. And that's what a RAW mentality encourages. It says that there is a right and a wrong way to play. That there can only be one right interpretation of the text and that others are lesser. And that's toxic.

quite true, in the end,
1. the rules are written down to play the game, not to be discussed (edit - they aren't written down for that reason. they aren't like a scientific work, ready to be peer reviewed).
2. the game is indeed designed to be played by RAF

but likewise, I would like to note that RADIT (Rules as the Designers Intended Them), still poses value. The game is balanced toward (side)effects those rules make.

I recall the discussion about the rogue's ablity to take half damage from attacks - where someone pointed out he interpreted 'attack" as the ...err ... english term, not the game-effect. And thus, he could take half damage from a fireball (as from his point of view, that indeed was a kind of attack)

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a dumb argument.

RAW doesn't define "fluff", "fluff" is defined by the community, not by the rulebook. A fluff rule is just a rule that has no mechanical purpose, and therefore can be altered without affecting the balance on the game. Therefore, DM's are "free" to change fluff rules without worrying that they're giving unfair advantages or disadvantages. DM's are, of course, free to change crunch rules, too, but a good DM is less likely to do so without careful consideration.

The druid armor rule is fluff IFF the DM would otherwise just give them fancy magic wood armor. If the special magic armor is more valuable than regular armor (as it probably should be in most contexts), then the balance of the game is somewhat affected by the rule. If the armor is almost nonexistent and requires a lengthy questline to obtain, then the balance is greatly affected by the rule. The only reason why it's an edge case is because the DM gets to specify how rare items like that are in the world.

DMs generally should allow players to refluff their PCs at will because it just improves player fun and doesn't affect the game balance (by definition). However, no DM is required to allow their hobbit player who's never left the Shire to wield a katana instead of a short sword if that doesn't fit the setting. That's why it's up to DM discretion.

Stated without evidence. That is, this is not RAW--by RAW it's all equally rules. And everything affects the narrative (or is totally surplus to begin with), and that's the balance that matters.

[chokfull]

If your DM chooses to stick by RAW only, then nothing can be refluffed. Most DMs don't, though. And many DMs just choose to use RAW for crunch only. It's just personal choice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If your DM chooses to stick by RAW only, then nothing can be refluffed. Most DMs don't, though. And many DMs just choose to use RAW for crunch only. It's just personal choice.

But how are you separating fluff from crunch? Everybody sees it differently. One man's fluff is another's crunch. No one sticks by RAW, because that's a meaningless statement. They stick to their own set of interpretations of the text. And that's not special in any way. That's all everyone does. Some are just more honest about it.

[chokfull]

That is to say, nothing can be refluffed except where specifically noted. There are some cases like that, particularly in Xanathar's and in the DMG. But at the same time, those books also have alternative rules for crunch/mechanics, too.

[EggKookoo]

Edit: and the fluff/crunch distinction teaches that only numbers matter. That anything not expressed as mechanics is lesser, isn't really rules. And that's full on false. Setting rules are more binding than mechanics. Crunch is always an abstraction, while fluff is the actual narrative rules that really matter.

I'm agnostic on which is more important. I think that's a nonsensical distinction to be honest. I think there's an asymmetrical dependency in that fluff is more likely to be altered by changes in crunch than the other way around. I also think you're more likely to imbalance your gameplay with small crunch changes -- crunch is more chaotic, perhaps. Less self-correcting. Fluff tends to be more stable, so changes tend not to propagate. It's easier to isolate setting idiosyncrasies. Mechanical changes have a way of propagating.

So I disagree that fluff is the stuff that really matters, in the sense that it matters more than crunch. A lot of players like to understand the crunch and will build their character concepts around it. I do that, for example. When tasked with making a PC, I don't start with a non-crunch concept. I start with the class/race rules (and now in 5e, the backgrounds) and see what I can get to emerge from it. That's what's fun for me -- to see how I can use the crunch to produce unique and compelling fluff. But really they're both essential pillars in the entire process.

[chokfull]

But how are you separating fluff from crunch? Everybody sees it differently. One man's fluff is another's crunch. No one sticks by RAW, because that's a meaningless statement. They stick to their own set of interpretations of the text. And that's not special in any way. That's all everyone does. Some are just more honest about it.

I already told you. It simply depends on what affects mechanics (i.e. combat/economics).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I already told you. It simply depends on what affects mechanics (i.e. combat/economics).

But everything affects everything, as long as you're not artificially ignoring the consequences of changes.

[chokfull]

"Everything affects everything" is pretty blatantly wrong. Whether my sword is a katana or a rapier doesn't affect combat mechanics if the stats are identical. It also doesn't affect the economy if they're priced the same.

[EggKookoo]

But everything affects everything, as long as you're not artificially ignoring the consequences of changes.

This is where I disagree. Not all fluff changes affect crunch. But that's also because I don't consider removing a circumstance that would allow you to use a mechanic as actually changing the mechanic itself. Removing dwarves from the game has no mechanical impact. There's no "you get a bonus to your attack when standing next to a dwarf" mechanic (and if there was, then removing dwarves from the game would become a crunch change). There are no mechanics depending on dwarves at all. Dwarves themselves have mechanics, of course, but that's not the same thing.

[Aett_Thorn]

But everything affects everything, as long as you're not artificially ignoring the consequences of changes.

No it doesn't. The "fluff" of Forest Gnomes living in secluded tree villages has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that they can swing a sword as a fighter, or take the Noble background despite them never having left their secluded village. There are many things in this game that don't have any bearing on other, mechanical factors that the game includes.

I think that you're really coming at this from a legalistic point of view, which was never intended by the designers to be the way that it is viewed. You seem to very much be coming at it from a "If the rules don't specifically say it, it's not a rule" mindset. I think that the design intent was much more supposed to be, "If the rules written down don't say it, work together to figure out if you want it to be a rule." Fluff is just much, much easier to change without having affects on other parts of the game.

I can make my Fireball blue, or green, or white-hot. It doesn't change that it does 8d6 fire damage. If I want to make it deal cold damage, then that is a mechanical change. The color was totally fluff - it had nothing to do with how it affected other parts of the game.


I would also point out that fluff in several of the books contradicts the fluff or crunch in other books. For instance, in the SCAG, it is noted that the Gnome Pantheon has no female gods, and has a section devoted to what is thought to have happened to them. This really has no bearing on the game itself. However, in Mordenkainen's, there are a couple of female Gnome gods listed. This does have a bearing on the game, since a player can choose one of those gods to worship. How would the worship of such a goddess be possible if there are no female gods in the pantheon? Sometimes, realizing that there are sometimes the books really just want to kick back and have a fun description of what happens, instead of only being a boring presentation of numbers and effects, means that we can all enjoy it a bit more.

RAW discussions are usually presented as a place to start off. The rules say X. But that doesn't mean that you can't do Y, but just realize that it MIGHT have an impact on other parts of the game. I don't think that I've ever seen a RAW discussion where people don't say that you can play however you want to, but here is what the book says. If the book doesn't say something, the discussion usually boils down to "ask your DM".

[Unoriginal]

N
I would also point out that fluff in several of the books contradicts the fluff or crunch in other books. For instance, in the SCAG, it is noted that the Gnome Pantheon has no female gods, and has a section devoted to what is thought to have happened to them. This really has no bearing on the game itself. However, in Mordenkainen's, there are a couple of female Gnome gods listed. This does have a bearing on the game, since a player can choose one of those gods to worship. How would the worship of such a goddess be possible if there are no female gods in the pantheon?

That's because the SCAG describes the Forgotten Realms' Gnome pantheon, while the Mordenkainen's describe the default setting one.

[Aett_Thorn]

That's because the SCAG describes the Forgotten Realms' Gnome pantheon, while the Mordenkainen's describe the default setting one.

Oh, I understand, but you can have two people arguing over "does the Gnome Pantheon have any female deities?", both basing their argument on RAW, and both be right. It's why I don't think that anyone here ever argues that RAW is the be-all, end-all. I have never seen that argument once on this forum, but that seems to be where Phoenix is starting from.

[diplomancer]

I already told you. It simply depends on what affects mechanics (i.e. combat/economics).

So, the druid armor thing, for instance, is obviously crunch, since he has a very different AC if he can wear it than if he cannot. And so it goes for most of those discussions- whenever they actually happen in earnest, whoever is arguing that "it's fluff" wants to squeeze some mechanical advantage out of not following the rule.

That is totally ok if he can convince his DM of it... but it does take some nerve to claim that this is actually "the one true interpretation required by RAW and you are either malicious or stupid if you can't see that"

[ad_hoc]

This is a dumb argument.

RAW doesn't define "fluff", "fluff" is defined by the community, not by the rulebook. A fluff rule is just a rule that has no mechanical (i.e. combat and/or economy) purpose, and therefore can be altered without affecting the balance on the game. Therefore, DM's are "free" to change fluff rules without worrying that they're giving unfair advantages or disadvantages. DM's are, of course, free to change crunch rules, too, but a good DM is less likely to do so without careful consideration.

The narrative/story defines the rules, not the other way around.

The designers have stated this clearly. Every rule starts with story first.

[EggKookoo]

So, the druid armor thing, for instance, is obviously crunch, since he has a very different AC if he can wear it than if he cannot.

There's no mechanical consequence of a druid wearing metal armor. There is a roleplaying consequence. It's almost literally the definition of fluff.


The narrative/story defines the rules, not the other way around.

Only true when the narrative needs an associated rule. "Dwarves are purple" has no mechanical implication with the current ruleset, therefore it can't define or inform any rules.

However, mechanical elements have a very high probability of influencing narrative. "Humans have darkvision" is mechanical, which will increase the likelihood that players will play human PCs, which will in turn influence narrative elements.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is where I disagree. Not all fluff changes affect crunch. But that's also because I don't consider removing a circumstance that would allow you to use a mechanic as actually changing the mechanic itself. Removing dwarves from the game has no mechanical impact. There's no "you get a bonus to your attack when standing next to a dwarf" mechanic (and if there was, then removing dwarves from the game would become a crunch change). There are no mechanics depending on dwarves at all. Dwarves themselves have mechanics, of course, but that's not the same thing.

Maybe "everything" is a bit hyperbolic, but lots of pure "fluff" has strong impacts in the narrative, which is much more important than how much damage (or what type) you deal in combat.

For example, the gender of a PC is completely fluff by the standard definitions. Exactly zero mechanical implications. A male halfling can fight just as well as a female halfling. But it matters a lot. How people react to you will be different (if the DM's competent at all). For example, in my setting an unattached male halfling that walks into a halfling-heavy area will have to talk fast to avoid being summarily married off to a group of women. Because halfling men are rarer than women (due to origin-related quirks and genetic bottlenecks), men are treated as objects of protection and their culture doesn't let them out much. Still perfectly valid as an adventurer--in fact, being an adventurer gives much more freedom.

Same goes for physical appearance. Unusual (for the region) hair colors, sizes, skin colors, builds, etc all will play a role in how people react. Or even the "katana" refluffing of a longsword. Katana-shaped swords are not common, so anyone who knows anything about weapons (which is most people) will immediately mark you as an outsider.

Narrative matters. Narrative matters, in my opinion more than mechanics. If the narrative reality demands that an NPC* die, they die, no matter how many hit points they have and how much that sword does.

* This only applies to NPCs, not because PCs are somehow exempt from physics but because it's a game and that wouldn't be fun. Unless someone says it should apply to their character, in which case I'm happy to oblige.

In my view, the order of importance goes

1. The people I'm playing with. Their fun takes priority over absolutely everything else.
2. The setting I'm playing in. Keeping immersion, keeping the invariants of that setting, following pre-established rules of that setting, keeping NPCs acting like they should--all of these are very important.
3. The small-scale fictional narrative. Not the greater story, not the plot, but making sure that the events we're recounting/describing make sense right now in their own context.
4. Everything else, including the text of the rules and the mechanics. And the gap between #3 and #4 is large. If a printed rule gets in the way of any of the first 3, it's out and I don't have a qualm about it. If something needs to be fudged to keep the first 3 going right, you better believe it gets fudged good and proper. Etc.

[diplomancer]

There's no mechanical consequence of a druid wearing metal armor. There is a roleplaying consequence. It's almost literally the definition of fluff

Ah, so his AC remains the same whether he wears it or not? Or is changing his AC not a mechanical consequence?

You know, I would consider letting a PC druid wear metal armor as long as his AC from doing so remained constant... you know, since it is just a fluff rule without mechanical consequences, and it is all about "my character concept" and not about increased mechanical power at all.

[EggKookoo]

Ah, so his AC remains the same whether he wears it or not? Or is changing his AC not a mechanical consequence?

You know what I mean.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You know what I mean.

You keep insisting that "roleplaying consequences" aren't real consequences by distinguishing them and minimizing their effect compared to mechanical ones. And that's just simply not true. Mechanical consequences are merely one tiny subset of consequences. There's no mechanical consequence prescribed for taking a long rest with no one on watch in a side room after the alarm has been sounded while infiltrating a fortress. But the hordes of enemies that will TPK you are a real consequence. In most cases, roleplaying consequences are more consequential than mechanical ones, unless you're running a pure combat simulator. Which is not 5e's design at all.

[EggKookoo]

You keep insisting that "roleplaying consequences" aren't real consequences by distinguishing them and minimizing their effect compared to mechanical ones.

I've done no such thing. Roleplaying consequences are real. In point of fact, I've been arguing they're just as real as mechanical ones. I'm saying roleplaying/narrative/fluff components are less likely to have an impact on mechanical/crunch components than the reverse. I'm not and haven't been saying anything about the relative importance or value of them aside from that I don't see one being inherently more important than the other.

To clarify what I mean (and I'm just repeating from before), I'm using narrative/fluff to mean things like "dwarves are purple." Changes to the setting that aren't about game mechanics. When I say mechanical/crunch I mean things like "humans get darkvision." Changes to the game mechanics themselves.

About the druid armor thing, I think I was clear but what I meant was there's no mechanical consequence of a druid putting on scale mail in relation to any other light/medium armor proficient character doing the same. The druid will be able to function just fine. I know it says "druids won't wear metal armor" but it doesn't say why not or what happens if they do. Therefore it falls under narrative/fluff. As soon as the DM creates a ruling that either prevents the druid from donning the armor or creates a mechanical penalty for doing so (similar to how a monk can't use many features while wearing armor), it becomes a crunch thing. But the crunch aspect is not RAW.


There's no mechanical consequence prescribed for taking a long rest with no one on watch in a side room after the alarm has been sounded while infiltrating a fortress. But the hordes of enemies that will TPK you are a real consequence.

Of course. Narrative choices have narrative consequences all the time. Wouldn't be worth having them in the game if they didn't. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've done no such thing. Roleplaying consequences are real. In point of fact, I've been arguing they're just as real as mechanical ones. I'm saying roleplaying/narrative/fluff components are less likely to have an impact on mechanical/crunch components than the reverse. I'm not and haven't been saying anything about the relative importance or value of them aside from that I don't see one being inherently more important than the other.

To clarify what I mean (and I'm just repeating from before), I'm using narrative/fluff to mean things like "dwarves are purple." Changes to the setting that aren't about game mechanics. When I say mechanical/crunch I mean things like "humans get darkvision." Changes to the game mechanics themselves.

By by separating mechanical consequences and roleplaying consequences you're saying that there's a meaningful distinction. And the phrasing has strongly implied that mechanical consequences require more care. Which, in my experience is rather not true. Whether something does X or X+-1 damage really doesn't matter at all. Whether something is an attack roll or a saving throw matters a bit more, but still really doesn't matter. Whether someone will talk to you or instantly goes to attack matters. I'd say that 99% of what we argue about on these forums (eg the fighter threads) are totally inconsequential--the differences as observed are in the noise. But those are mechanical consequences and so they "matter" to some people.



About the druid armor thing, I think I was clear but what I meant was there's no mechanical consequence of a druid putting on scale mail in relation to any other light/medium armor proficient character doing the same. The druid will be able to function just fine. I know it says "druids won't wear metal armor" but it doesn't say why not or what happens if they do. Therefore it falls under narrative/fluff. As soon as the DM creates a ruling that either prevents the druid from donning the armor or creates a mechanical penalty for doing so (similar to how a monk can't use many features while wearing armor), it becomes a crunch thing. But the crunch aspect is not RAW.


Why does the non-existence of mechanical consequences matter at all? You're skipping a whole bunch of steps here. Why does something being fluff or crunch matter? I'd say it doesn't. It's either all rules or none of it is rules, there is no justification from either text or designers (or even logic) to distinguish the two.



Of course. Narrative choices have narrative consequences all the time. Wouldn't be worth having them in the game if they didn't. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

My understanding of your entire point in this thread is that mechanical consequences have to be carefully considered and so "matter" in a way that narrative ones do not. In my eyes, narrative consequences have greater knock-on effects and have more propensity to disturb verisimilitude and shatter immersion than mechanical ones. I'd even say that most of the time the mechanics are irrelevant. You could replace them with any other system and get the same result. They're not the drivers. So for me, trying to distinguish "things which, when changed, have mechanical consequences" from "things, which when changed, have narrative consequences" is pointless--almost everything has narrative consequences and the mechanical consequences are of low importance.

And you're using "fluff" and "crunch" differently than most do. Take dwarves' darkvision (cited in one of the first responses). They have darkvision because they're accustomed to life underground. If, as a matter of setting, dwarves don't live underground, that "fluff" needs to change or the darkvision needs to go away. So you can't simply refluff things--every change has meaningful consequences down the line for the setting and for the mechanics. They're not simply disentangled.

My setting is heavily customized. I've found that almost every "fluff" change I've made has incurred some mechanical changes for it to make sense in context. Yes, this includes the nature of the planes. Doing one without the other creates dissonance. This happens for even the small things.

I'd say that mechanical changes are the least likely to actually cause knock-on effects in my experience. You can change an orc from an axe to a longsword/shield without substantially affecting the encounters. But changing orcs from a wild horde of undisciplined savages to a strongly-ordered military force has huge knock-on effects for the setting and the gameplay, including significant combat effects (due to changed tactics).

[Unoriginal]

Dwarves being purple would mean that it's much harder for them to disguise into other humanoids.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Dwarves being purple would mean that it's much harder for them to disguise into other humanoids.

And higher DCs (or disadvantage/advantage) are mechanical consequences. Ergo, just about everything has mechanical consequences. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

You know what I mean.
I don't. Getting a higher AC by wearing metal armor so is a mechanical consequence of Druids not following the rule that they will not wear metal armor. So what do you mean?

Edit: if you mean there's no mechanical negative consequence, that depends on your DM ruling you're proficient. But yeah, that usually the interpretation that's followed, so you can wear (for example) Dragonscale magic armor. But so what?

If you mean "if there is no negative consequence why should I obey the rule", the answer is because it is the rule, your character won't do it. If the question is why, there is no answer provided for you. Decide yourself why that rule applies to you. But it's the rule. The one thing you cannot decide is that your character will wear metal armor.

That's why I call it a roleplaying rule. It is a rule defining the kinds of decisions/choices that player is allowed to make for the character's willingness to do something, and then define the reasons why that's the case themselves.

[diplomancer]

You know what I mean.

I do. You mean that there is a considerable mechanical advantage to druids if they can wear metal armor, and you think people should be able to squeeze out this mechanical advantage, so you are calling this rule "fluff" so that it does not have to be followed, even though it has a clear mechanical consequence.

[Unoriginal]

If the question is why, there is no answer provided for you. Decide yourself.

The answer is "because Druids are part of a faith that won't do that".

Religious taboos are a thing.

[EggKookoo]

I do. You mean that there is a considerable mechanical advantage to druids if they can wear metal armor, and you think people should be able to squeeze out this mechanical advantage, so you are calling this rule "fluff" so that it does not have to be followed, even though it has a clear mechanical consequence.

So many assumptions here...

I mean there is no mechanical penalty to a druid putting on a suit of metal armor. The description says druids won't wear metal armor. Ok, my druid player puts a suit on. What happens? Nothing mechanically (well, aside from the druid gaining the appropriate AC for the armor), therefore no mechanical consequence. I have to handle this entirely in the realm of roleplaying. I could create a ruling, which is technically RAW, but the ruling I create itself isn't (just that I'm allowed to). I would probably create a ruling since that's more consistent with 5e overall. Old D&D would say things like "magic users don't use swords" and the DM would just have to say they can't, even if there was precious little to explain what would happen if a PC magic user tried. Proficiencies help a lot there, but also limiting druid features to acceptable armor is another. Hell, paladins have to uphold their Oaths in order to keep using their features. Simple thing to apply a similar logic to druids. The mechanical ruling I'd come up with would have narrative backing, of course.

I never said people should be able to get away with their druids wearing metal armor. I only said that it's of no mechanical consequence. Everything else is coming from you.

Edited to try to make things super clear.

[EggKookoo]

The answer is "because Druids are part of a faith that won't do that".

Religious taboos are a thing.

My druid says "screw dat."

Apostates are a thing, too.

[diplomancer]

My druid says "screw dat."

Apostates are a thing, too.

well, that at least creates an interesting story. Does an Apostate from a faith gets divine magic from it? It is quite reasonable to say "no they don't", and a DM would be in his rights to argue that; if they do keep their divine magic, do other members of the faith hunt him down until he is dead for his heresy? It is also quite possible in-setting.

Sure, there are no rules defining those consequences. Why not? Because "druids will not wear metal armor"; "will not" can be a stronger condition than "can not"; "can not" implies an outwardly imposed limitation, which might, in certain circunstances, be overcome. "will not" is a self imposed limitation, which could only be broken by breaking the will of the person, as in a domination spell.

PC: "my druid puts on the half-plate"
DM: "no, he doesn't"
PC: "What do you mean, are you restricting what my character can do?"
Dm: "yes, because the rules so restrict your character, says right here in the PHB"

Did the DM act innapropriately or did he in any way break the rules of the game?

[EggKookoo]

Did the DM act innapropriately or did he in any way break the rules of the game?

IMO, he overstepped. Better to come up with a consequence. My ruling would be to work it basically like a paladin Oath and have the druid lose access to some minor feature. If the druid relents, the feature returns. If not, more and more gets taken away. If the druid goes too long using armor, they'd probably lose all druid status and I'd probably have the player multiclass into something else, like a fighter. All very mechanical but that's okay. I would prefer the PHB provide a mechanical penalty for wearing inappropriate armor mainly for consistency. They do it for monks, barbarians, and a few other things I think (paladins with their Oaths).

However, the reality is if I had a player make a druid and then attempt something like this, we'd have to sit down out of game and talk about why they're doing it. That would hopefully lead to an interesting plotline and we'd work out the appropriate narrative-driven consequences.

To PhoenixPhyre, I think what you're referring to as fluff is to me just playing the game. That's narrative and mechanical. For me, fluff is any setting-based element that is not, in and of itself, a mechanical rule. I get why purple dwarves might have mechanical implications for disguise, but that's still a fluff change to me. I'm not changing the mechanics of disguises. I'm changing the circumstances for how the mechanic is applied in the setting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To PhoenixPhyre, I think what you're referring to as fluff is to me just playing the game. That's narrative and mechanical. For me, fluff is any setting-based element that is not, in and of itself, a mechanical rule. I get why purple dwarves might have mechanical implications for disguise, but that's still a fluff change to me. I'm not changing the mechanics of disguises. I'm changing the circumstances for how the mechanic is applied in the setting.

What I'm saying is that that distinction is without a difference. Purple dwarves are as much a mechanical change as blue fireballs--blue fire is hotter than red fire so people should have disadvantage.

I'm arguing against the concept of the fluff/crunch distinction, because in my experience, all changes have mechanical and narrative consequences (at least if I want to have a world that makes sense). I'm saying that distinguishing some things as "fluff" is merely a rhetorical tactic used to dismiss concerns about the consequences by labeling them non-mechanical and thus less important or less valid. It's not based on anything in the structure of the game or the rules themselves, it's entirely a way to avoid the logical effects of particular interpretations.

[diplomancer]

IMO, he overstepped. Better to come up with a consequence. My ruling would be to work it basically like a paladin Oath and have the druid lose access to some minor feature. If the druid relents, the feature returns. If not, more and more gets taken away. If the druid goes too long using armor, they'd probably lose all druid status and I'd probably have the player multiclass into something else, like a fighter. All very mechanical but that's okay. I would prefer the PHB provide a mechanical penalty for wearing inappropriate armor mainly for consistency. They do it for monks, barbarians, and a few other things I think (paladins with their Oaths).

However, the reality is if I had a player make a druid and then attempt something like this, we'd have to sit down out of game and talk about why they're doing it. That would hopefully lead to an interesting plotline and we'd work out the appropriate narrative driven consequences

That would probably be my attitude too. But if, after talking to the player, it was clear to me that the main motivation is the mechanical benefit and not trying to create an interesting plotline with appropriate narrative driven consequences, I would go back to the PHB text and say "no he doesn't, and please stop trying to bend the rules to get mechanical benefits, this is not what D&D is about, let's roleplay, tell a story and have fun"

[EggKookoo]

I'm saying that distinguishing some things as "fluff" is merely a rhetorical tactic used to dismiss concerns about the consequences by labeling them non-mechanical and thus less important or less valid. It's not based on anything in the structure of the game or the rules themselves, it's entirely a way to avoid the logical effects of particular interpretations.

I think you may see this because the fluff stuff is traditionally considered more personal and individual. If I say "my dwarves are purple" people shrug. If I say "my greatswords do 4d8 damage" people bring out the pitchforks. This may be because of, as you say, the view that crunch is more important. But it's also because people immediately see how changing a weapon's damage can cause all kinds of havoc with their favorite builds. It's hard to see how purple dwarves can be exploited or make you feel gimped.

[EggKookoo]

That would probably be my attitude too. But if, after talking to the player, it was clear to me that the main motivation is the mechanical benefit and not trying to create an interesting plotline with appropriate narrative driven consequences, I would go back to the PHB text and say "no he doesn't, and please stop trying to bend the rules to get mechanical benefits, this is not what D&D is about"

Which is why I tend to discourage multiclassing at my table. It smacks of messing with the rules to get a mechanical benefit rather than seeing the classes as narrative... WAIT, WAIT, WHERE DID ALL THOSE PITCHFORKS COME FROM!?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you may see this because the fluff stuff is traditionally considered more personal and individual. If I say "my dwarves are purple" people shrug. If I say "my greatswords do 4d8 damage" people bring out the pitchforks. This may be because of, as you say, the view that crunch is more important. But it's also because people immediately see how changing a weapon's damage can cause all kinds of havoc with their favorite builds. It's hard to see how purple dwarves can be exploited or make you feel gimped.

And this disparity is what I'm arguing against. It's a remnant of an era that prioritized hard numbers over everything else, that made numerical optimization the pinnacle of game design, an era that, in my opinion, was absolutely toxic and whose poisonous fruits still cause damage to modern games and gamers. It teaches that mechanical > narrative, that unless it's expressed in numbers it doesn't matter, that loophole-hunting and all other rules tricks are acceptable as long as it's OK by "RAW", that using rules as weapons to prove other people wrong is a valid tactic.

<gollum-voice>I HATES it, yes I does.</gollum-voice>

5e was designed exactly contrary to this idea. It rejects the distinction and counsels DMs and players to consider the narrative first and adapt the mechanics to that rather than vice versa. It denies that mechanics are a simulation of the in-universe fiction. It counsels that "rules" are to be a discussion between people who know and trust each other, rather than an adversarial trial-by-rulebook.

[diplomancer]

Which is why I tend to discourage multiclassing at my table. It smacks of messing with the rules to get a mechanical benefit rather than seeing the classes as narrative... WAIT, WAIT, WHERE DID ALL THOSE PITCHFORKS COME FROM!?

hahaha, great answer... I am actually playing right now a level 20 paladin (starting from 1st level) whom, when I was about level 9, I thought of multi-classing to sorcerer.

Though there was an in-story event around level 9 that might justify that, I still was a bit unconfortable about trying to get this possible mechanical benefit without a good story reason, and I could see that so was the DM. I decided to keep going as a Paladin, and all I can say is that I don't feel underpowered at all,, even though the other PC is a wizard.

Phoenixphyre, I cant really express how much I agree with
your last post. All this arguing of "I should be allowed to do this by RAW" is so very tiring.

[Tanarii]

Did the DM act innapropriately or did he in any way break the rules of the game?
Nope.

If a player wants to have a house-ruled character, they can of course request that. But a DM is not overstepping their bounds, acting inappropriately, nor breaking the rules of the game to say that they don't want to use a particular house rule in their game.

Although it's generally a good idea to have a reason why. On both sides.

[EggKookoo]

And this disparity is what I'm arguing against. It's a remnant of an era that prioritized hard numbers over everything else, that made numerical optimization the pinnacle of game design, an era that, in my opinion, was absolutely toxic and whose poisonous fruits still cause damage to modern games and gamers. It teaches that mechanical > narrative, that unless it's expressed in numbers it doesn't matter, that loophole-hunting and all other rules tricks are acceptable as long as it's OK by "RAW", that using rules as weapons to prove other people wrong is a valid tactic.

Thing is, while it may be true that the attitude about fluff vs. crunch should evolve, it doesn't change the simple fact that it's still easier for many people to grok the implications of crunch deviations over fluff deviations. It's all well and good to declare no distinction between fluff and crunch, but there is a distinction in that crunch is, frankly, simpler.

Also, a damn good many people play "kick the door in" D&D and couldn't give two bits about the setting beyond "do I get to play a drow?" That's not how I play or run my games but I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't do that. I have two actual real-world player examples of that kind of disparity. One writes backstories for her characters and comes up with all kinds of adventure hooks that I could use. The other wants me to roll up his character for him and always gives his characters the same name because he can't be bothered to come up with something new. For the former, D&D is a big exercise in creative imagination. For the latter, it's a chance to hang out with friends (I suspect we could be playing poker for all he cares).


5e was designed exactly contrary to this idea. It rejects the distinction and counsels DMs and players to consider the narrative first and adapt the mechanics to that rather than vice versa. It denies that mechanics are a simulation of the in-universe fiction. It counsels that "rules" are to be a discussion between people who know and trust each other, rather than an adversarial trial-by-rulebook.

In general true, although I wonder why paladins need mechanical consequences of breaking their Oaths. Or monks need mechanical consequences of wearing armor. Or why the devs had to use the proficiency mechanic to justify wizards wearing (or not wearing) armor. It's good that the rules follow the narrative but that means there needs to be rules that follow the narrative.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thing is, while it may be true that the attitude about fluff vs. crunch should evolve, it doesn't change the simple fact that it's still easier for many people to grok the implications of crunch deviations over fluff deviations. It's all well and good to declare no distinction between fluff and crunch, but there is a distinction in that crunch is, frankly, simpler.

Also, a damn good many people play "kick the door in" D&D and couldn't give two bits about the setting beyond "do I get to play a drow?" That's not how I play or run my games but I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't do that. I have two actual real-world player examples of that kind of disparity. One writes backstories for her characters and comes up with all kinds of adventure hooks that I could use. The other wants me to roll up his character for him and always gives his characters the same name because he can't be bothered to come up with something new. For the former, D&D is a big exercise in creative imagination. For the latter, it's a chance to hang out with friends (I suspect we could be playing poker for all he cares).


There are many reasons to play. It still doesn't justify making artificial distinctions that encourage bad person-to-person behavior. And that's what this one does. It encourages people to use rules as weapons, to seek mechanical advantage by twisting the words and selectively ignoring pieces where convenient. It encourages people to say "well, yes this is scummy but RAW says I can do it so you have to let it pass"--to blame something else (the rules) for their bad behavior.



In general true, although I wonder why paladins need mechanical consequences of breaking their Oaths. Or monks need mechanical consequences of wearing armor. Or why the devs had to use the proficiency mechanic to justify wizards wearing (or not wearing) armor. It's good that the rules follow the narrative but that means there needs to be rules that follow the narrative.

Some of that is left-over sacred cows. And note that for paladins it's specifically not as simple as breaking your oath. It involves intentionally walking away from your oath. That's something that can only happen narratively and intentionally. And it's there by demand--as part of 5e being the "best parts" version of earlier editions, things like falling paladins had to be there explicitly. Some things are better with direct mechanical consequences (because they're simple and consistent). "You can't cast in armor because you're not used to wearing it" or "you can't kick/punch right in armor because your techniques require flexibility that the armor restricts" are obvious, natural consequences of the action itself, independent of the setting. "You can't gain power from an Oath you reject" is also a natural consequence of basic logic.

Druids wearing metal armor isn't so natural of a consequence. The why of it will vary from world to world. In my setting, druids that have been stuffed into an "iron can" (as they called it) report that it's like having a bad head cold, except of the spirit. You can't feel the presence of the kami because you're surrounded by that much metal that's had the life hammered out of it, that much shindai kami (dead/sleeping spirits). Negotiating with the kami (which is what druids do to cast and prepare spells, as well as wildshape in my setting) while wearing significant amounts of metal is like wearing a toddler-style heavy snowsuit and trying to do fine art--it's clumsy and you lose all the natural sensation. In other settings, the reasons might be different. But unless that piece of rule changes, druids will not wear metal armor. If (willingly wearing metal armor) then (not a druid). It's a rule, despite the lack of spelled-out mechanical consequences.

[EggKookoo]

There are many reasons to play. It still doesn't justify making artificial distinctions that encourage bad person-to-person behavior. And that's what this one does. It encourages people to use rules as weapons, to seek mechanical advantage by twisting the words and selectively ignoring pieces where convenient. It encourages people to say "well, yes this is scummy but RAW says I can do it so you have to let it pass"--to blame something else (the rules) for their bad behavior.

I think I loosely get what you're saying more now but I'm not confident that I really comprehend it. My failing I'm sure. I mean I do get the idea that bad rules can be used by bad and/or lazy players to hide behind, and in the past I've used that particular argument for why I think 5e is an improvement over recent earlier editions. With the looser rules in 5e, a DM is required to fill in the gaps more, so there are fewer places to hide. A counter that I've heard is that for the same reason a 5e DM "can't be wrong," but I think "wrong" in 5e means your players aren't buying your rulings. Whereas in earlier editions the DM could point at a printed rule (and there were enough of them) and claim RAW. The players have no choice but to buy it if they don't want to be accused of breaking the rules.

I'm not sure this is what you're getting at, though. It sounds like you have experience with people (players? other DMs?) running over your narrative stuff because it's not as "important" as the mechanical stuff. Maybe?


Some of that is left-over sacred cows. And note that for paladins it's specifically not as simple as breaking your oath. It involves intentionally walking away from your oath. That's something that can only happen narratively and intentionally. And it's there by demand--as part of 5e being the "best parts" version of earlier editions, things like falling paladins had to be there explicitly. Some things are better with direct mechanical consequences (because they're simple and consistent). "You can't cast in armor because you're not used to wearing it" or "you can't kick/punch right in armor because your techniques require flexibility that the armor restricts" are obvious, natural consequences of the action itself, independent of the setting. "You can't gain power from an Oath you reject" is also a natural consequence of basic logic.

Just to be clear, I like that 5e has mechanical, codified consequences for these kinds of things. I wish the druid did for armor. If anything is a left-over sacred cow, it's that line about metal armor, which feels snuck in from 2e or something. A proper 5e rule would outline the mechanical consequences for the druid player making the narrative decision to break the armor restriction.


If (willingly wearing metal armor) then (not a druid). It's a rule, despite the lack of spelled-out mechanical consequences.

I think players nowadays appreciate a sense of natural law or a de-emphasis on the gamey side of these things. There must be an in-universe consequence for breaking the druid armor rule. That can certainly be played out narratively. It also gets to the issue of what it means to be a "druid." If I can use all the druid class features, am I a druid? If I can do everything a druid does but I'm not a "druid" because I wear metal armor, what am I?

Bear in mind that I agree with you that a druid would not wear prohibited gear, but it's not enough for me (and certainly not enough for my players) to say "because the rules say so." I would be expected to explain the repercussions of violating that commandment, or at least project confidence that I knew what they were. I feel it'd be an utter failure of me as a DM to say "gosh, I dunno, because the druid feature says so." If I couldn't come up with something better than that, I would feel (self-)pressured to just remove the limitation. Otherwise, it would lead me down a path of working out a mechanical consequence, such as disabling various druid features. Maybe a good solid narrative consequence as well, such as being shunned by other druids, but honestly that would be the lesser impact. My players usually think of themselves as outcasts and outliers anyway. Being shunned by their community is on the resume.

I haven't run into this particular issue in-game. No druid players have questioned the rule, probably because if they ever thought to, they wouldn't want to play a druid in the first place.

[Kadesh]

Anyone got a rule to say that the rules as they are written are different from the written rules?

Or is Unoriginal just pulling that one from the ether too?

[Unoriginal]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings


Rules are a big part of what makes D&D a game, rather than simply improvised storytelling. The game’s rules are meant to help organize, and even inspire, the action of a D&D campaign. The rules are a tool, and we want our tools to be as effective as possible. No matter how good those tools might be, they need a group of players to bring them to life and a DM to guide their use.

The DM is key. Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t.

In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.

Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice comes in. This column doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication. Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes. The column should also reveal some perspectives that help you see parts of the game in a new light and that aid you in fine-tuning your D&D experience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremy Crawford

RAW is defined by Crawford as an interpretation of the written rules, based only on the context and the text.

[PhoenixPhyre]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings



Jeremy Crawford

RAW is defined by Crawford as an interpretation of the written rules, based only on the context and the text.

And states that it is merely the starting point for analysis, not a stopping point or binding thing. If that's what people used the term here to mean, I'd be fine with that. But it's become so much more, including ignoring parts of the context, reading phrase by phrase in an unnatural way, forcing words to only have one meaning, proof-texting, and otherwise doing violence to the text in order to win arguments and hunt for mechanical advantage (or deny others mechanical goodies).

[Unoriginal]

And states that it is merely the starting point for analysis, not a stopping point or binding thing. If that's what people used the term here to mean, I'd be fine with that. But it's become so much more, including ignoring parts of the context, reading phrase by phrase in an unnatural way, forcing words to only have one meaning, proof-texting, and otherwise doing violence to the text in order to win arguments and hunt for mechanical advantage (or deny others mechanical goodies).

Indeed. Funny how meanings shift.

[Pex]

You're presuming that the "proper" interpretation of the text is

A. Single valued
B. The most important thing.

Nether of those is true. By design. Not by error, not by mistake. By design. There are always, and always have been and always will be multiple valid interpretations of any non trivial text. And the text is one voice among many.

Anyone who yells at another person for having another interpretation of the text is in the wrong, full stop. That's exactly badwrongfun. And that's what a RAW mentality encourages. It says that there is a right and a wrong way to play. That there can only be one right interpretation of the text and that others are lesser. And that's toxic.

Edit: and the fluff/crunch distinction teaches that only numbers matter. That anything not expressed as mechanics is lesser, isn't really rules. And that's full on false. Setting rules are more binding than mechanics. Crunch is always an abstraction, while fluff is the actual narrative rules that really matter.

So again, the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter. You see it as a feature. I see it as a bug. We agree on what 5E is. We disagree whether that's a good thing or not.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So again, the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter. You see it as a feature. I see it as a bug. We agree on what 5E is. We disagree whether that's a good thing or not.

Again with the malicious misrepresentation. What you say and what I said are not the same. Repeating yourself changes nothing about the fact that you're just flat out making stuff up here. We know you don't like 5e's design. Doesn't mean you can lie about what it is and what it means. Just because they're not the rules you want or interpreted the way you prefer doesn't mean anyone thinks they don't matter. I, for one, think there are more rules that matter than just the mechanical ones you're so fixated on. So from my perspective, you are the one who doesn't care about the real rules.

[Pex]

Again with the malicious misrepresentation. What you say and what I said are not the same. Repeating yourself changes nothing about the fact that you're just flat out making stuff up here. We know you don't like 5e's design. Doesn't mean you can lie about what it is and what it means. Just because they're not the rules you want or interpreted the way you prefer doesn't mean anyone thinks they don't matter. I, for one, think there are more rules that matter than just the mechanical ones you're so fixated on. So from my perspective, you are the one who doesn't care about the real rules.

How can I lie about what it is when I'm allowed to interpret the rules how I see fit even if it's different than how you would?

[Vorpalchicken]

I think most DMs will react with rulings when presented with metal armoured druid shenanigans. Not "RAW" by any means but personally I would rule that it counts as non-proficiency (i.e. no spellcasting and disadvantage on many things) if the player has his Druid willingly dress in metal armour.

Logically, how could you become proficient in something you cannot bare to use? On the other hand, if a player character forced an NPC druid (or possibly even another PC) to somehow wear metal armour I would not impose a penalty.

Sometimes a player just has to stop and ask themself if they are being a munchkin.

[Unoriginal]

Pex, DCs were and are always made up, no matter the edition.

There is no "true" DCs somewhere that 5e is ignoring so it can spread its dirty dirty false DCs.

As for those DCs being bugs: when the designers have stated time and time again they set out to do something on purpose, and obtained the desired results after using the desired method, it cannot be a bug. It is a feature.


As for pretending that PhoenixPhyre is saying "the rules don't matter" again and again, it is indeed malicious misrepresentation.



How can I lie about what it is when I'm allowed to interpret the rules how I see fit even if it's different than how you would?

You're lying about the nature of the rules, without even touching the stage of interpretation, and you're lying about what people have said on this forum.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm arguing against the concept of the fluff/crunch distinction, because in my experience, all changes have mechanical and narrative consequences (at least if I want to have a world that makes sense). I'm saying that distinguishing some things as "fluff" is merely a rhetorical tactic used to dismiss concerns about the consequences by labeling them non-mechanical and thus less important or less valid. It's not based on anything in the structure of the game or the rules themselves, it's entirely a way to avoid the logical effects of particular interpretations.

Well, I'm sure a DM that changes things. I take ''scorching ray" and re fluff it to..any effect I want. This can really throw a lot of players for a loop...even if it's just a 'jet of water' or a 'blast of air'.....but it really makes players go crazy when it's like ''a blast of acidic oil that is on fire and shaped like a snake''.


Bear in mind that I agree with you that a druid would not wear prohibited gear, but it's not enough for me (and certainly not enough for my players) to say "because the rules say so." I would be expected to explain the repercussions of violating that commandment, or at least project confidence that I knew what they were.

But other then you don't like it, how is it different then any other rule? Why can't a character make ten attacks a round? Just ''because the rules say so?"





So again, the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter. You see it as a feature. I see it as a bug.

I see this as a Good Feature.

[Pex]

Disagreement is lying.

There's that yelling again.

[EggKookoo]

But other then you don't like it, how is it different then any other rule? Why can't a character make ten attacks a round? Just ''because the rules say so?"

Not all rules are created equal. One of the problems with "magic users can't wear armor" from the old days was that there was no reason a magic user couldn't just strap a suit on. When a player asked why a magic user can't wear armor, the OD&D rules (pre-3 I think?) just kinda mumbled something and then said "look, Big Ben!" Players felt like there wasn't any fictional reasoning behind it and it was purely a gamey rule.

Compare to "why can't my fighter cast spells?" in OD&D. The answer was "because your fighter lacks the theoretical understanding of arcane magic and has spent his life doing things other than academic research." It's a lot easier to digest that my fighter can't cast spells because he lacks the mental aptitude to do so, than that my magic user can't wear armor because of no particular reason at all. It's doubtful the magic user is not strong enough, and even if he weren't you know someone would roll up a high-Str magic user just to try it (plus IIRC OD&D didn't have a Str-based requirement for armor).

So you can't attack 10 times because you're not fast enough. Pretty easy to comprehend. The mechanic backs that up with something that makes intuitive sense. You can't say "well, I choose to attack 10 times!" You can try but you won't be able to do it, and the point where that happens is what the mechanics describe. Unless you're a fighter with full Extra Attack and you use action surge, your bonus action, and get an opportunity attack. :smallwink:

A druid wearing metal armor is more like the magic user wearing armor. "Well, I just do it" is a perfectly acceptable gameplay action (roleplaying concerns aside). There are very few rules in modern D&D that have this kind of "whelp, sorry, you just can't." That you can try anything is a core tenet of TTRPGs and D&D in particular. The fighter can try to cast magic missile, too.

[Kane0]

What can change the nature of a rule?

[Mjolnirbear]

Honestly I'm a fan of the definition on the very first page: if it has a mechanical effect or mechanical interaction, it's rules (aka crunch). If it is merely descriptive, it's fluff, and changing it has no rules interaction consequence.


Certain monasteries use specialized forms of the monk weapons. For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (calIed a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided for the weapon in chapter 5.

Similarly, a warlock's pact of the blade weapon can take any appearance. It follows the rules of the weapon they choose to emulate, but it can look like anything they like. In the Improvised Weapons rules, if an improvised weapon has the general size and shape of a particular weapon, you may use the rules for that weapon.

These support "descriptions are mutable and can be changed". Non of these examples expressly offer a 'general rule'. But there are many such examples and thus a general rule can be, and often is, assumed by the GM.


AS THE DUNGEON MASTER, YOU AREN'T LIMITED by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual. You can let your imagination run wild. This chapter contains optional rules that you can use to customize your campaign, as well as guidelines on creating your own material, such as monsters and magic items.

Or, paraphrasing, you can use, change, modify, discard, or ignore anything in a rule book. Explicitly, there is no RAW that players can use to overrule the DM. RAW is not priveleged, as another has already put it.

As DM, rules help you adjudicate. They are guidelines, not commandments.

There are also ribbons. A ribbon is expressly defined in Unearthed Arcana as a design decision, in the UA that first showed us the Storm Sorcerer. They are rules of little mechanical consequence that exist to add or enhance flavour. The druid/metal armour thing is a ribbon. It references a rule, armour, which has a rule interaction: something worn that gives you AC by virtue of protective materials (as opposed to, say, a cloak of protection, which gives you armour by virtue of magic, and does not count as armour.) So too is the paladin Oath, the fact that only elves can be bladesingers, or only dwarves can be battleragers, or the details of the warlock's patron.

Because it serves the purpose of flavour, it can be changed with little consequence if the DM chooses. She can change *any* rule, but *this* rule is especially mutable because of the lack of consequences.

So we have, apparently, tiers of rules.
1) The merely descriptive, which can be changed with no consequence (implied 'rule')
2) Ribbons, which have minimal consequences and whose purpose is merely flavour (express design intent)
3) Everything else that is written down about how to play the game. In practice, almost all DMs consider the rest as RAW, or crunch. Remember, even these are *expressly and purposefully* mutable by the DM.

TL;DR: I think it was asked in the OP whether anyone knew of an express rule that separated fluff and crunch. I was sure there was one; I remembered reading you were allowed to change the look of your spell, for instance. I couldn't find that, but found other examples that supported a distinction between some text and other text. I've found express distinctions, but for what OP asked for, only an implied rule. But since, expressly, the DM is not limited by rules, the DM can change things or rule as they wish; since the rules are, expressly, only guidelines, the examples found serve as excellent measuring posts on how you can alter descriptions to suit what is fun for you and your players.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Thread locked for review.