Idea: D&D rule interpretation supreme court

[Aaedimus]

We've got all these niche situations that create huge discussions on how the rules are interpreted etc. In many cases, there is no answer, as the rules are purposefully vague in many cases, leaving it up to the DM to provide rulings etc.

When playing with close friends, this is perfectly fine, but D&D is more than any time in the past becoming a game you play in public with strangers. This can create misunderstandings, confusion, and contention.

I think having a vetted group of D&D enthusiasts, possibly with education or expertise in non-D&D legal and/or logic to write opinion pieces providing rulings and dissenting opinions with sources and in depth ----- may have its merits.

It would obviously be an opt-in system where DMs would say: in public games, "I refer to rulings and from the Sigil Court" or something during my games. Also, if players or DMs get in an argument, they could say: "let's see what the Court says". It would keep people on the same page, and avoid possible conflict.

I also think it could be really fun! I don't know about you, but I'd happily read a 7 page decision and/or dissenting opinion with sources and examples.

You could have applicants to the court provide a sourced thesis paper on a controversial topic along with personal credentials to apply for a position and than be voted in (there would be a voter registration process)

It would have to start with a court constitution or something... does anyone else think this would be fun??? Or am I just weird lol

[Aaedimus]

Heck, maybe there could even be a court system, and things would only make it to the supreme court through a process by which cases could be vetted and screened for precident.

[Galithar]

Sounds like a great idea that has little chance of success. The number of times I've seen people say "We rule by Sage Advice" and then Sage Advice contradicts someone and they still want to try to argue about it because "That's dumb and Crawford doesn't know what he's talking about, they just copied his tweet in to Sage Advice... blah blah blah"

Besides, who determines what issues they address? Do you "hire" these people and then just let them write about whatever they want and then someone else is supposed to provide the dissenting opinion? Do they then have to 'vote' on the official "Council Rule"?

[GreyBlack]

Yeah... this would be great were it not antithetical to the design philosophy of 5e, which is to say "Anything goes, ask your DM." The system feels built to allow DM'S to make on the spot rulings rather than having an arbitration system of RAW. The rules are a bit more fast and loose than hard and fast.

[Aaedimus]

Sounds like a great idea that has little chance of success. The number of times I've seen people say "We rule by Sage Advice" and then Sage Advice contradicts someone and they still want to try to argue about it because "That's dumb and Crawford doesn't know what he's talking about, they just copied his tweet in to Sage Advice... blah blah blah"

Besides, who determines what issues they address? Do you "hire" these people and then just let them write about whatever they want and then someone else is supposed to provide the dissenting opinion? Do they then have to 'vote' on the official "Council Rule"?

I think part of the problem is that those decisions can be off the cuff, he's changed his mind and created confusion, and the rulings aren't detailed enough. The product needs to be in depth and thorough.

There are many possible ways to decide. Take for example if there was a council of 5. There could be a spot for submissions, where the community upvotes controversial ideas, at the same time the council runs through and picks out interesting concepts. The council votes or deliberates on the next subject, compiles research, there could even be a trial with the representation being democratically upvoted based on community perspective. There's a pre-decision summary, a vote, than an opinion and dissenting opinion published, with a plain text summary for reference. The level of detail that goes into the decision making I think would both drive participation, and provide a level of legitimacy that a decision by one person cannot achieve.

Also, since it's not official content, ignoring it is a legitimate move. I think it would be fun though, and provide a deeper more effective form of world building and creation of effective and fun sub-rules, in a way straddling the line between the restrictive and complex 3.5 while providing the freedom and ease of use of 5E.


Yeah... this would be great were it not antithetical to the design philosophy of 5e, which is to say "Anything goes, ask your DM." The system feels built to allow DM'S to make on the spot rulings rather than having an arbitration system of RAW. The rules are a bit more fast and loose than hard and fast.

I think personally it would be most useful as a DM tool. There could even be a forum like this with strings for comment, votes, and debate on each opinion. I agree with the concepts you provide, but I think the biggest reason it's built that way is because 3.5 was overburdened by an overwhelming amount of nitpicky rules. As many have said, this has positives and negatives. The simple design of 5E makes entrance and play on 5E simple, intuitive, and natural.

But I don't think this makes the idea of something like this irrelevant.

[Merudo]

Sounds like a great idea that has little chance of success. The number of times I've seen people say "We rule by Sage Advice" and then Sage Advice contradicts someone and they still want to try to argue about it because "That's dumb and Crawford doesn't know what he's talking about, they just copied his tweet in to Sage Advice... blah blah blah"

Besides, who determines what issues they address? Do you "hire" these people and then just let them write about whatever they want and then someone else is supposed to provide the dissenting opinion? Do they then have to 'vote' on the official "Council Rule"?

The court could be constituted of volunteers, and doesn't need to be approved by WotC.

Heck, we could have elections for the court right here on this forum.

Frankly, I'd think the judgement of the 9 most knowledgeable folks on this forum would be much more valuable than what Crawford is saying,

[Aaedimus]

Maybe I'll try writing up a charter and submitting it to the forum for review to see what everyone thinks... I think this could be cool.

Anyone have suggestions, ideas, or warnings? Something like that should be as democratically created as possible.

On a forum like this, in addition to providing an official application, applicants could even provide examples of their contributions for review.

Something like this would take a months to plan, and set up legitimately.

[strangebloke]

Yes, I would very much like a seat on this court.

And on my great desk, which is definitely real and made of mahogany, I shall place a plackard. This plackard shall serve as my answer in all situations:

"Talk to your DM about it. If it really bothers you that much, find a different table. Otherwise, suck it up."

[Aaedimus]

Does anyone have any real life resources or examples of something similar to this I could plagiarize to use as a starting point for an organizational charter? (Other than the actual Supreme Court)

Also, does anyone have name suggestions for the Court

[Tanarii]

Yeah ... That's just about the opposite of what 5e needs. Having errata and sage advice telling us the intended dev interpretation is enough. Anything else is anti-D&D. Or at least anti-O/A/Classic/5e D&D.

[Merudo]

Yeah ... That's just about the opposite of what 5e needs. Having errata and sage advice telling us the intended dev interpretation is enough. Anything else is anti-D&D. Or at least anti-O/A/Classic/5e D&D.

What you are essentially saying is that RAW doesn't matter. That's a fine position to have, but I'm sure many disagree.

Personally, I think a RAW standard established by "experts" has some value & utility, and that the proposed court system has some potential.

[JoeJ]

Personally, I think a RAW standard established by "experts" has some value & utility, and that the proposed court system has some potential.

There already is a RAW standard established by experts; it's called Sage Advice. What this thread is proposing is RAW as interpreted by somebody on the internet.

[MeeposFire]

This would sadly solve nothing here. A common refrain here is that things like people here or Sage advice or whatnot do nto have the authority to decide these things how would this idea change anything? A random group of people here would have no authority outside of people here deciding to go with it but if we were able to handle that as a group then we would not need this panel to start with.


What people really need to do is to start realizing to not worry so much and make a judgment. If you need more info ask and if you get multiple interpretations look at them and choose the one you like best. In the end that is how the designers actually want you to go (ie make rulings).


Just also note that this is not a new issue people have had this issue before in 3e people would make complaints about the FAQ, the sage, and people on the sites and there were numerous times you could not get an argument ended by using the RAW (back then the problem was that everybody expected to use RAW but you really could not do that in a pure fashion whereas today the problem is that some people can not wrap their minds around the idea that the designers are happy with you making rulings on how you see the RAW).

[Tanarii]

What you are essentially saying is that RAW doesn't matter. That's a fine position to have, but I'm sure many disagree.
RAW is the words written on the page. What you're looking for is an "official" RAI, not RAW.

[Merudo]

There already is a RAW standard established by experts; it's called Sage Advice. What this thread is proposing is RAW as interpreted by somebody on the internet.

Sage Advice often contradicts the the text though. A good example is the often repeated Sage Advice claim that dropping items is a free action (found nowhere in any rulebook!).

[Merudo]

A random group of people here would have no authority outside of people here deciding to go with it but if we were able to handle that as a group then we would not need this panel to start with.

Its authority would rely on the quality of its rulings. Again, no one would be forced to follow them, but if the "court" gives good advice 99 times out of 100 I'd be inclined to listen.

[Kane0]

Perhaps just a vote system?

[Aaedimus]

Well, that's why I said the members of the court would be democratically chosen after submitting applications which included experience, and a thesis on a controversial ruling. Personally during the selection, I would give bonus points to anyone with either formal schooling in Law or Logic.

Subjects for consideration and legal representation of each law could also be democratically chosen.

[JoeJ]

Sage Advice often contradicts the the text though. A good example is the often repeated Sage Advice claim that dropping items is a free action (found nowhere in any rulebook!).

That's not a contradiction. If the text said somewhere that dropping an item required your action, then it would be a contradiction to claim that it doesn't. And I'm skeptical that SA ever said anything is a free action, because free actions aren't a thing. I think it's more likely what they actually said was that dropping something counts as interacting with an object.

But getting back to the topic of the thread, the people who argue and complain when something they disagree with is published in SA would be just as prone to argue and complain every time the rules "supreme court" decided something that they disagreed with. There's nothing a supreme court could do that SA doesn't already do, with better insight into what the intention of the rules actually is.

[MeeposFire]

Its authority would rely on the quality of its rulings. Again, no one would be forced to follow them, but if the "court" gives good advice 99 times out of 100 I'd be inclined to listen.

Lol yea no. Nobody would care. You can find people here that can already give you rulings that appear to be right very often and it does not mean jack. You can come up with a panel and someone is going to argue saying "this is not an official panel so your judgement is worthless" and for the people that would listen they are likely already listening to the good advice you can find around here so sadly that means it is not needed. Those who would listen to the advice already get it here when they ask around and those that would argue would still argue with this panel.

[Unoriginal]

This edition was literally built on avoiding things like RAW legalese and exact-wording abuse.

You're basically asking "hey, I know this game is nice, but how about we destroy its core principles and try to make it more like some past editions?

[Merudo]

There's nothing a supreme court could do that SA doesn't already do, with better insight into what the intention of the rules actually is.

Are you awake of "Textualism"?

According to Textualism, interpretation of the law should be primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the text, and no consideration should be given to non-textual sources, such as: intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.

Clearly Textualism has a lot in common with RAW. Sage Advice isn't particularly interested in Textualism/RAW and very often gives RAI answers, or straight up new rules even.

However, a court of volunteers could certainly give RAW answers. That's useful.

[Merudo]

Lol yea no. Nobody would care.

At the very least a few people in this thread seem to care.

[Chronos]

When I saw the title, I was picturing the actual Supreme Court of the United States ruling on a point of the D&D rules. Which is a bit far-fetched, but it's possible for something like D&D rules to come before a real court: Imagine that two people make a wager on a duel between characters, but the outcome of the duel is in dispute because of some ambiguous point of rules, and now one player is suing the other to pay up on the wager.

But back on topic, the fundamental problem with Sage Advice is that it's written by the same designers who made it an explicit design goal to avoid clear, unambiguous language, in the hope that that would somehow decrease rules-lawyering. The real way to avoid the players being lawyers is for the rules designers (or interpreters, in the case of a court) to be lawyers instead. The people we have running Sage Advice, in other words, are exactly the wrong people for the job.

[BurgerBeast]

I think it would be fruitful.

I think it would be different than sage advice because of its depth of analysis, (intended) lack of bias, and (in comparison to tweets, specifically) prioritization of consistency.

A side-benefit would be, presuming that it was done well, its finality. There would, again assuming it was done well, be no good reason for 35-page arguments about rules for which the Supreme Court has already ruled, because the arguments would (in theory) already have been examined in greater depth by the Supreme Court.

The utility would not take the form of, nor do I think it is intended (by the OP) to take the form of, universal application. (Not least because it wouldn’t be universally applied, anyway.) The utility would be its educational value to DMs and players alike. It would be an invaluable source for a DM, for example, to gather a large amount of information to consider before committing to an interpretation that makes the most sense for his table.

I take the view that this forum, on matters of RAW, has the unfortunate circumstance that its most enthusiastic contributors are decidedly not the most qualified contributors (yes, I realize that this includes myself, and yes, I recognize the perceived irony in my saying so - but it’s still true). The Supreme Court is, more-or-less, a brilliant way to provide transparency to this (whether to confirm or deny my suspicion), and levels the playing field in terms of providing equal opportunity to express opinion (i.e. preventing repetition of the same points, by the same people, ad nauseum.

I’m a fan.

An alternative suggestion which may be something of a half-way point, perhaps even a compromise, between the typical 35-page forum argument and the Supreme Court, would be a podcast series of mediated long-form discussions (a la the Intellectual Dark Web) which are civil and respectful attempts to “get to the bottom” of (in this case) RAW.

I would subscribe to, for example, Tanarii’s RAW Podcast conceived in the spirit of The Joe Rogan Podcast or Making Sense with Sam Harris.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The RAW Supreme Court would be great in all cases where their ruling coincided with mine and useless in all others.

[Unoriginal]

I think it would be fruitful.


5e is built around the principle of individual DMs thinking for themselves and making the calls that works and are fun for their individual tables.

To grant some kind of overruling importance to the opinions of an Autority is plain and simple trying to fix 5e by ignoring what 5e is.


If it's fruitful, it'd be fruitful in the same way that mistletoe and holly are.

[clash]

I think the big problem with this idea would not be dms looking for advice but players trying to force the rounds owned by the court on their dms. I think as well intentioned as it sounds it is too rules lawyery and would only serve as another source of contention

[MaxWilson]

It would have to start with a court constitution or something... does anyone else think this would be fun??? Or am I just weird lol

I have zero desire to outsource my DMing decisions, and zero confidence that the rulings from a bunch of strangers would be better than mine. There is value in honoring what's written in the rulebooks because the players have access to rulebooks and will expect the rules to be followed unless the house rule document says otherwise; but there is no value (to me) in rulings from a third party. (WotC is also a third party BTW.)


Frankly, I'd think the judgement of the 9 most knowledgeable folks on this forum would be much more valuable than what Crawford is saying,

It sounds to me like you should check out https://rpg.stackexchange.com/, which has a much better answer quality than this forum due to the rating system which bubbles good answers up to the top. And yes, a far, far better answer quality than Crawford's tweets, and somewhat better than Sage Advice.


A side-benefit would be, presuming that it was done well, its finality. There would, again assuming it was done well, be no good reason for 35-page arguments about rules for which the Supreme Court has already ruled, because the arguments would (in theory) already have been examined in greater depth by the Supreme Court.

I think this only works if you require all Supreme Court rulings to be unanimous. Otherwise you wind up with the issue of 5-4 split decisions that are clearly decided not on the merits but by the composition of the court: as soon as the composition of the court changes, everybody wants to re-litigate everything with the same arguments because (e.g.) now the Textualists are in the majority instead of the Storytellers.

[PhantomSoul]

I think if this were to be a thing they should give both the RAW 'pronouncement' (where "it's unclear/ambiguous" is acceptable) and the "what we think would be best in-game" suggestions. The latter being what would probably be most interesting to read. And the considerations/contexts should be described as context, to help interpret the 'rulings'. Could be fun, but there should probably obviously also be a disclaimer on each one saying your game is yours!

[Tanarii]

But back on topic, the fundamental problem with Sage Advice is that it's written by the same designers who made it an explicit design goal to avoid clear, unambiguous language, in the hope that that would somehow decrease rules-lawyering. The real way to avoid the players being lawyers is for the rules designers (or interpreters, in the case of a court) to be lawyers instead.3e and the WotC Internet forums during that era proved this philosophy to be utterly wrong. If you truly believe this, you either weren't a participant or are incapable of learning from history.


The people we have running Sage Advice, in other words, are exactly the wrong people for the job.
This may or may not be the case, but the idea that someone who wrote the rule would tell you what they meant is a decent one. That applies all the time IRL btw.

[BurgerBeast]

5e is built around the principle of individual DMs thinking for themselves and making the calls that works and are fun for their individual tables.

I agree.

The idea of a free society is that people will think for themselves and make the calls that work and are fun in their individual circles.

This doesn’t mean that education is pointless. Seeing others think deeply in public informs one’s ability to think, which informs one’s ability to make calls.

Also, the ability to think is context specific. Just because I can think critically about geometry and ecology does not mean I can think critically about ballet or poetry.

If people want to develop their ability to think about the rules of D&D, it is helpful to see/hear others think about the rules of D&D.


To grant some kind of overruling importance to the opinions of an Autority is plain and simple trying to fix 5e by ignoring what 5e is.

There wouldn’t be an overruling importance. There couldn’t be. People can do what they want.

[Unoriginal]

I agree.

The idea of a free society is that people will think for themselves and make the calls that work and are fun in their individual circles.

This doesn’t mean that education is pointless. Seeing others think deeply in public informs one’s ability to think, which informs one’s ability to make calls.

Also, the ability to think is context specific. Just because I can think critically about geometry and ecology does not mean I can think critically about ballet or poetry.

If people want to develop their ability to think about the rules of D&D, it is helpful to see/hear others think about the rules of D&D.



There wouldn’t be an overruling importance. There couldn’t be. People can do what they want.

A Supreme Court is an overruling Autority, not a teaching tool.

Wanting people to think critically about D&D and share those thoughts is legitimate... but isn't it what this whole subforum is about already?

[PhantomSoul]

A Supreme Court is an overruling Autority, not a teaching tool.

Yeah, it should be called something like The Council of Elder Brains

[BurgerBeast]

A Supreme Court is an overruling Autority, not a teaching tool.

Those are not mutually exclusive, in the first place.

But the main point here is that the Supreme Court of the United States applies to the citizens of the United States, who are bound by US law, which is enforced by the US government. The “Supreme Court” of D&D RAW applies to gaming groups who care about it, and is enforced by nobody.

So you can have an entity that functions like the Supreme Court, and it can be useful,
Regardless of whether it has any teeth.

The third point, here, is that the Supreme Court is not simply an authority. If it was, it would just declare its decisions and they would be enforced.

Instead, the justices go to great pains to write out detailed explanations and rationales for their opinions and it’s the same for dissenting opinions. These written rationales are then used by lower courts to inform their decisions. So the process is educational, in this sense.

A single table is somewhat analogous to a lower court, here. They can read the decisions of the S.C. and use them to inform their own decisions. But they don’t need to because it’s not enforced.


Wanting people to think critically about D&D and share those thoughts is legitimate... but isn't it what this whole subforum is about already?

Well, yes, in theory. But it’s almost always a bunch of people talking around each other, virtue-signalling, and otherwise missing the point. It usually goes something like this:

Post 1: Hi guys. I have this idea. Do you think it is balanced?

Post 2: Why would you want to do that?

Post 3: That’s not the way the game works.

Post 4: I have a different idea and it looks like this.

...

So nothing really gets discussed.

[MeeposFire]

The problem with the comparison to the US Supreme Court and this idea is that the SCOTUS has authority so when it rules something it actually means something (though even then that is not always true if you look back to President Jackson he famously ignored the SCOTUS essentially saying they could rule all they want but they could not enforce it thus allowing him to continue working against Native populations). This panel would have zero authority and so the people that already do not listen to people here would still not listen to this panel so what point does it serve?


Essentially you want to give an assortment of posters same faux title to make it look like their opinions matter more than other people's opinions with no more authority on this than they already do now. Are we going to somehow agree that these couple posters should be an authority? How do we decide that? How do convince anybody else that those reasons actually matter.

We already have a panel of people that discuss/argue/whatever rules here along with a RAW thread is calling a select few of them as being special actually help or does it only find a way to feed egos of the few people chosen to be representatives? And also what happens if somebody disagrees with this court ruling? Do they get shot down? If not what is the point because we can already do this without having a panel.

[JoeJ]

Are you awake of "Textualism"?

According to Textualism, interpretation of the law should be primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the text, and no consideration should be given to non-textual sources, such as: intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.

Clearly Textualism has a lot in common with RAW. Sage Advice isn't particularly interested in Textualism/RAW and very often gives RAI answers, or straight up new rules even.

However, a court of volunteers could certainly give RAW answers. That's useful.

It's not useful. You don't need a court to give RAW answers; anybody who is literate can read the text for themselves. If the meaning is not perfectly clear to everybody at the table, then the court's decision will be rejected as obviously not RAW by everybody who came to a different conclusion. Their rulings will be treated exactly the way SA is, and quite properly so since they're just the opinions of people who aren't playing at your table and who therefore don't actually matter.

[jh12]

As one of the Justices famously quipped, their decisions aren't final because they are right; their decisions are right because they are final.

[BurgerBeast]

The arguments being put forward in this thread are pretty spectacular. People are seriously behaving as if nobody could possibly have the capacity nor the desire to change their mind.

You might as well argue that there is no point in discussing anything, ever, or that insofar as there is a reason to discuss things, one format is sufficient to best facilitate those discussions.

Sorry, but there are reasons why people listen to other opinions. Some people actually do have open minds and desire to hear the well-articulated opinions of their opponents. And there are reasons for why some discussion formats are better than others, in specific contexts.

And this is not even getting into the evidence, in this very thread, which demonstrates that at least some of us are saying we would find it useful. What’s so hard to believe? (1) Some of us would find it interesting or even useful to read a well articulated, long-form argument for why a particular take on RAW is most accurate. (2) Some of us think that the type of long-form argument and dissent used by the Supreme Court would be a better format for this than the GitPG forum.

People are saying (1) and (2). And others are telling them that they are wrong.

Breathtaking.

[Unoriginal]

The arguments being put forward in this thread are pretty spectacular. People are seriously behaving as if nobody could possibly have the capacity nor the desire to change their mind.

You might as well argue that there is no point in discussing anything, ever, or that insofar as there is a reason to discuss things, one format is sufficient to best facilitate those discussions.

Sorry, but there are reasons why people listen to other opinions. Some people actually do have open minds and desire to hear the well-articulated opinions of their opponents. And there are reasons for why some discussion formats are better than others, in specific contexts.

And this is not even getting into the evidence, in this very thread, which demonstrates that at least some of us are saying we would find it useful. What’s so hard to believe? (1) Some of us would find it interesting or even useful to read a well articulated, long-form argument for why a particular take on RAW is most accurate. (2) Some of us think that the type of long-form argument and dissent used by the Supreme Court would be a better format for this than the GitPG forum.

People are saying (1) and (2). And others are telling them that they are wrong.

Breathtaking.

You don't see anything that could displease people when you compare a bunch of specific opinions/interpretation to the Supreme Cour?

Yes, people can change their minds. Yes, discussing rule points can be useful to some.

But words have meaning, and declaring something a Supreme Court, or treating the D&D rules like something to be lawyered, isn't the same as "it'd be neat to discuss rules that way".

[Kane0]

Yeah, it should be called something like The Council of Elder Brains

SILENCE!

There will he five of them, they will be color coded, they will interrupt and disagree with each other but above all they will know their role is a smokescreen.

Quiet Jimmy.

[Unoriginal]

Also, and I don't want to sound rude, but if you guys want to create something like that, then discussing it in this thread won't help.

You should actually start it and then have people come to it if they're interested.

That's a weakness of the forum format, threads about talking to do something tend to not help threads about doing something.

[JoeJ]

And this is not even getting into the evidence, in this very thread, which demonstrates that at least some of us are saying we would find it useful. What’s so hard to believe? (1) Some of us would find it interesting or even useful to read a well articulated, long-form argument for why a particular take on RAW is most accurate. (2) Some of us think that the type of long-form argument and dissent used by the Supreme Court would be a better format for this than the GitPG forum.

And some of us would find it harmful to give a small but loud subset of players yet another reason to disrupt the game with arguments about the rules.

[zlefin]

I doubt many would read the rulings.
In my experience, most people are in DnD for fun, and they are not interested in reading rulings done at a high level of rigor. There's not much overlap with the crowd of people who read actual supreme court rulings for fun.

[Pex]

I don't need people on the internet telling me how the game is to be played. Once in a while I ask for clarification of a rule, but I know it's only opinion not authority and make my own conclusion on the matter or advise the DM when he wants said opinions. Sometimes the DM has ruled differently than what Forum people have suggested. Opinions are an interesting read, useful for having a conversation, and helpful when I need them. In any case I will never accept a Supreme Court verdict as valid argument in a Forum discussion on how the game should be played or viewed with the same contempt I have for the Tier System on how 3E/Pathfinder ought to be played or viewed. It is not authority.

[MeeposFire]

The arguments being put forward in this thread are pretty spectacular. People are seriously behaving as if nobody could possibly have the capacity nor the desire to change their mind.

You might as well argue that there is no point in discussing anything, ever, or that insofar as there is a reason to discuss things, one format is sufficient to best facilitate those discussions.

Sorry, but there are reasons why people listen to other opinions. Some people actually do have open minds and desire to hear the well-articulated opinions of their opponents. And there are reasons for why some discussion formats are better than others, in specific contexts.

And this is not even getting into the evidence, in this very thread, which demonstrates that at least some of us are saying we would find it useful. What’s so hard to believe? (1) Some of us would find it interesting or even useful to read a well articulated, long-form argument for why a particular take on RAW is most accurate. (2) Some of us think that the type of long-form argument and dissent used by the Supreme Court would be a better format for this than the GitPG forum.

People are saying (1) and (2). And others are telling them that they are wrong.

Breathtaking.

Try this outside of a title (that means nothing because nobody has any actual authority to bestow any sort of title for this sort of thing) what are you accomplishing that people here already do not do?

You already have people here who will give you opinions on rulings and the RAW and what have you. People go and disagree or agree here all the time. The issue isn't that you cannot change people's minds you can but calling something a supreme court does nothing for you.

Those who were going to ask for opinoins and take something from them already do this here just by making forum threads so they do nto need a supreme court they already get what they want. The people that do not listen to people in threads are the same people that will not pay any mind to some supreme court so once again it is useless.

The only value in having a supreme court is if it somehow had the power to make actual binding decisions but no such thing will happen (and the closest thing we have to that in Sage rulings is not even good enough for these people and has not been for the most part except somewhat in 4e). Without that power it is no different from what we have now except we now have people trying to say that this group has some sort of authority fighting against others saying that they do not (frankly we need less of that not more).

For instance if we have this court and they make a decision that the shield master feat bonus action can be used essentially at any time during your turn so long as you use the attack action during that turn and then in that thread somebody brought up hey the book says this and the official Sage ruling says the opposite of the court's ruling what now? Should we go with the court? Why they have no real authority on the matter. Should we go with the Sage ruling? If you do you were going to regardless of the court so the court did not help. If I do go with the court I would get much the same reaction in a current thread with the same arguments against it so what did the court get me?

The most annoying thing here for some is getting into an argument but the court would not stop that so what am I getting out of it? Getting a group of people to contribute to a question you have to come up with a best ruling in your game is a great idea but putting some sort of title on a group here is just asking to create an additional argument about the legitimacy of the court on top of the arguments on the rules themselves. Do you really think threads need the extra arguments over something like that. I don't.

[TheUser]

Given this forum's inability to interpret what most would consider unsophisticated common parlence or even direct, cut and dry rules, my faith in any verdict would be dubious at best.

[Sigreid]

I find it hard to believe anyone thinks it's a good idea. But then I'm often surprised at how many people want some authority to think and make their decisions for them.

[opaopajr]

Diffusing adjudication power into a lengthy and contentious process -- which can further be gamed through community politicization -- is not the game I came to play at the table. :smalltongue:

Real litigation is long and annoying enough. Pretend litigation costs more than it is worth upon inception. :smallsmile:

[Keravath]

Honestly, I don't think the idea is all that useful unfortunately.

Why? D&D is a game we all play for fun. The rules make it extremely clear that the DM has the last word. We get on the forums and debate endlessly about what the rules do or do not say. Yes, I'd like a bit more clarification from the game developer that would clarify some of these points. However, the bottom line is that is completely unneeded since the DM is the final arbiter and they get to decide.

If you play AL, you know that the AL DMs are completely free to ignore Sage Advice or any other external source of rulings. AL DMs aren't allowed to make stuff up, use optional rules beyond the few specified, make substantial changes to modules, or use any sort of homebrewed rules. However, in a situation like the recent wall of force discussion, you will get some DMs who play it one way and some the other.

A player is free to express their opinion but in the end the DM decides.

Here's a recent example: Eldritch Knight character with the following features:

"WAR MAGIC
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action."
"ELDRITCH STRIKE
At 10th level, you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature's resistance to your spells. When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn."

The player wanted to use the bonus action attack which is granted when the character casts a cantrip BEFORE they cast the cantrip so that the level 10 feature would kick in giving the target disadvantage on the saving throw against the cantrip.

In this case, the DM decided that the wording of war magic meant that the cantrip had to come first since casting the cantrip gives the character the bonus action attack. (This is actually the same wording that is used in the Shield Master feat which has caused a lot of debate also.

This is a perfectly ok decision and the game went smoothly on.

The point of the anecdote is that no matter how many minutiae of the rules come up ... the DM is STILL the final arbiter. It is a game, and at the table during the game, some outside "court" that hands down some ruling on what the rules are really supposed to mean just isn't relevant.

I'd love to see it coming from the game designers and developers, mostly from an intellectual perspective ... "here are the rules and what they mean, we've tried to clear up some of the confusion". However, most would not accept some ruling from some council of players or self-appointed experts since there really aren't any. The D&D rules at play are different at every table and for every DM depending on how they read the rules and there is NO RIGHT ANSWER in practical terms as long as folks are having a good time. This is actually the fundamental issue with JC's tweets. Some if not most of his answers are how he would play it at his table if the question came up. Even as the lead designer of 5e, this represents one take on the rules and not necessarily the "one right" version. This is also why so many of JCs answers seem so non-committal. He usually just says here is what the rules say ... play with what you think it says and enjoy yourselves.

Sometimes, the rules can be read more than one way. This doesn't make one person's reading the RIGHT answer. It just makes it different.

Anyway, if this "court" had lots of people with different opinions and only unanimous rulings could be accepted that would be fine :) ... anything else would need to be referred to the game designer to get an idea of what they were looking for or what they meant since the rules can be read in multiple ways and there isn't one clearly correct answer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find it hard to believe anyone thinks it's a good idea. But then I'm often surprised at how many people want some authority to think and make their decisions for them.

In my more charitable moments, I'm convinced that they are either very lawful or afraid of making mistakes. That they lack self confidence.

In my less charitable moments, I fear that they want to use this presumed authority as cover or weapons to get their way in a dispute. See--these guys agree with me, and they're "experts".

Both interpretations are better served by just buckling down, taking to the players at their tables (including the DM), and deciding for themselves what they think is most fun. This doesn't depend on what anyone else thinks, not even the printed text if they decide otherwise.

The DMG lists a few things to be concerned about changing. Almost anything else can be run however you wish without catastrophe. So try things, fixing them if they don't work how you want.

[BurgerBeast]

I can hear the “whoosh” as it flies over everyone’s heads... again.

You’re getting hung up on the “Supreme Court” name. Take a minute, and think.

It would have ZERO authority and ZERO influence on anyone’s game. Not only by design, but because it is IMPOSSIBLE. It would be impossible to force anyone to play D&D any given way.

So, and take a moment here: THE POINT IS NOT FOR IT TO BE AN AUTHORITY.

It can’t be. End of story.

Suppose you wanted, for some reason, to understand a popular debate. You could look up a forum on the internet designed to examine it, or you could go to the relevant literature and try to LEARN the best-stated arguments for your position and the opposing position(s).

Both strategies have their pros and cons. None of them FORCE YOU TO CHANGE YOUR MIND.

The argument being put forward here is not that it would be good for a small group of people to tell you how to play D&D.

The argument is that it would be good if, as a reference, people could read the best-articulated arguments for both sides of an RAW controversy without having to comb through multiple multi-page threads with all of their oblique and tangential side-arguments, name-calling, and belligerence.

If all you care about is the PLOT of Hamlet, you can watch Sons of Anarchy. This doesn’t mean there’s no point in reading Shakespeare “because it does the same thing.”

[TheUser]

I can hear the “whoosh” as it flies over everyone’s heads... again.

You’re getting hung up on the “Supreme Court” name. Take a minute, and think.

It would have ZERO authority and ZERO influence on anyone’s game. Not only by design, but because it is IMPOSSIBLE. It would be impossible to force anyone to play D&D any given way.

So, and take a moment here: THE POINT IS NOT FOR IT TO BE AN AUTHORITY.

It can’t be. End of story.

Suppose you wanted, for some reason, to understand a popular debate. You could look up a forum on the internet designed to examine it, or you could go to the relevant literature and try to LEARN the best-stated arguments for your position and the opposing position(s).

Both strategies have their pros and cons. None of them FORCE YOU TO CHANGE YOUR MIND.

The argument being put forward here is not that it would be good for a small group of people to tell you how to play D&D.

The argument is that it would be good if, as a reference, people could read the best-articulated arguments for both sides of an RAW controversy without having to comb through multiple multi-page threads with all of their oblique and tangential side-arguments, name-calling, and belligerence.

If all you care about is the PLOT of Hamlet, you can watch Sons of Anarchy. This doesn’t mean there’s no point in reading Shakespeare “because it does the same thing.”


Oh...you mean the advanced search function/google?

[MeeposFire]

Yea how is this idea anything different from what we have now if the "supreme court" (or whatever you end up calling it since it apparently does not matter) has no authority or really anything?

Seriously anybody could right now make a thread and call it their house rule and rulings thread and do what you are talking about right with the same level of success. In fact some people already do that so I am not sure what you are missing. The only way it would not be something we can already do is if it had authority and as we all know it will not so I fail to see what it would accomplish that we can not already do.

[Sigreid]

I can hear the “whoosh” as it flies over everyone’s heads... again.

You’re getting hung up on the “Supreme Court” name. Take a minute, and think.

It would have ZERO authority and ZERO influence on anyone’s game. Not only by design, but because it is IMPOSSIBLE. It would be impossible to force anyone to play D&D any given way.

So, and take a moment here: THE POINT IS NOT FOR IT TO BE AN AUTHORITY.

It can’t be. End of story.

Suppose you wanted, for some reason, to understand a popular debate. You could look up a forum on the internet designed to examine it, or you could go to the relevant literature and try to LEARN the best-stated arguments for your position and the opposing position(s).

Both strategies have their pros and cons. None of them FORCE YOU TO CHANGE YOUR MIND.

The argument being put forward here is not that it would be good for a small group of people to tell you how to play D&D.

The argument is that it would be good if, as a reference, people could read the best-articulated arguments for both sides of an RAW controversy without having to comb through multiple multi-page threads with all of their oblique and tangential side-arguments, name-calling, and belligerence.

If all you care about is the PLOT of Hamlet, you can watch Sons of Anarchy. This doesn’t mean there’s no point in reading Shakespeare “because it does the same thing.”

I think that wooshing sound you're hearing is you missing the point others are making. Everyone on this forum and every other forum is capable of deciding for themselves what is a good argument for a given ruling. They're also perfectly capable of identifying for themselves who on a particular forum is likely to present a perspective that they can derive value from. Nobody needs some group to decide that "these are the smart guys".

[2D8HP]

The Simple RAW for 5e 4: Smackdown v. RAW (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?561952-Simple-RAW-for-5e-4-Smackdown-v-RAW) thread already does this for me if I have a rules question of something I have in mind for the future, if it's a ruling at the table then it's whatever the DM says in that moment.

For plot or character idea questions I have this sub-forum, or the World-Building (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?57-World-Building) one work fine for me.

What's missing that something new would help with?

[BurgerBeast]

I think that wooshing sound you're hearing is you missing the point others are making. Everyone on this forum and every other forum is capable of deciding for themselves what is a good argument for a given ruling. They're also perfectly capable of identifying for themselves who on a particular forum is likely to present a perspective that they can derive value from. Nobody needs some group to decide that "these are the smart guys".

No. It’s still whooshing over your head.

I know that everyone is capable of deciding for themselves and I know that they are capable of distinguishing the opinions they prefer on this forum.

And I agree.

Hence: WHOOSH.

There is no argument to be had here, despite the repeated treatment of what I am saying as if I am saying that we need an authority or there is no variety of opinion, here.

But nobody on this forum is treating this with the depth that is possible via other methods, mostly because we’re using *this* method.

So, AGAIN, the fact that you have an opinion about religion, and spend time on religious forums, and know who in those forums you agree with and who you disagree with... does not mean that therefore it is a waste of time to listen to Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have a discussion about religion.

It’s still valuable. Not because they’re the best, necessarily, but almost certainly because they’ve read the best.

You can have opinions about evolution without ever having read Darwin. There is a use to reading him, regardless of whether it changes your opinion.

I’m surprised this is being argued, because it is more or less the point of life to continue to expose yourself to ideas and adjust yours, to improve yourself as preparation for future challenges.

[Unoriginal]

No. It’s still whooshing over your head.

I know that everyone is capable of deciding for themselves and I know that they are capable of distinguishing the opinions they prefer on this forum.

And I agree.

Hence: WHOOSH.

There is no argument to be had here, despite the repeated treatment of what I am saying as if I am saying that we need an authority or there is no variety of opinion, here.

But nobody on this forum is treating this with the depth that is possible via other methods, mostly because we’re using *this* method.

So, AGAIN, the fact that you have an opinion about religion, and spend time on religious forums, and know who in those forums you agree with and who you disagree with... does not mean that therefore it is a waste of time to listen to Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have a discussion about religion.

It’s still valuable. Not because they’re the best, necessarily, but almost certainly because they’ve read the best.

You can have opinions about evolution without ever having read Darwin. There is a use to reading him, regardless of whether it changes your opinion.

I’m surprised this is being argued, because it is more or less the point of life to continue to expose yourself to ideas and adjust yours, to improve yourself as preparation for future challenges.

A question remains, though.


You, OP and a few others already consider the medium you're defending to be a good idea. It's enough people to do this project. Are you going to start a thread for it?

It's be more productive to show us how we're wrong than just tell us.

[Sigreid]

No. It’s still whooshing over your head.

I know that everyone is capable of deciding for themselves and I know that they are capable of distinguishing the opinions they prefer on this forum.

And I agree.

Hence: WHOOSH.

There is no argument to be had here, despite the repeated treatment of what I am saying as if I am saying that we need an authority or there is no variety of opinion, here.

But nobody on this forum is treating this with the depth that is possible via other methods, mostly because we’re using *this* method.

So, AGAIN, the fact that you have an opinion about religion, and spend time on religious forums, and know who in those forums you agree with and who you disagree with... does not mean that therefore it is a waste of time to listen to Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have a discussion about religion.

It’s still valuable. Not because they’re the best, necessarily, but almost certainly because they’ve read the best.

You can have opinions about evolution without ever having read Darwin. There is a use to reading him, regardless of whether it changes your opinion.

I’m surprised this is being argued, because it is more or less the point of life to continue to expose yourself to ideas and adjust yours, to improve yourself as preparation for future challenges.

And I'm saying this already happens.

[BurgerBeast]

And I'm saying this already happens.

Fair enough. I’m saying it doesn’t.

Essentially the call for a “Supreme Court” is a call for long-form, well reasoned argument. Perhaps you are satisfied that you get that here, which explains your position.

I’m not criticizing that.

But now put yourself in the shoes of someone who is underwhelmed with the depth of thought and analysis put into the RAW discussions, here.

They are craving depth and consistency and logical application at a level that they’re not getting here - hence the point of the thread.

[BurgerBeast]

A question remains, though.


You, OP and a few others already consider the medium you're defending to be a good idea. It's enough people to do this project. Are you going to start a thread for it?

It's be more productive to show us how we're wrong than just tell us.

I’m not.

My understanding is that the OP is testing the waters, so to speak.

I would say, as my personal opinion, that to start a thread on it would probably be a waste of time. I had assumed it would be a project undertaken in a different way. The forum is not the right medium.

Plus, I’d rather work with you on the introductory adventure idea from the other thread. ;)

[2D8HP]

....put yourself in the shoes of someone who is underwhelmed with the depth of thought and analysis put into the RAW discussions, here.

They are craving depth and consistency and logical application at a level that they’re not getting here - hence the point of the thread.


I'm frankly puzzled as the RAW discussions here seem incredibly "in the weeds" to me and I have a hard time imagining craving even more 'depth'.

How well does @MaxWilson's suggestion:


...It sounds to me like you should check out https://rpg.stackexchange.com/..


work for you?

What sorts of rules questions does anyone want more depth on?

[Aaedimus]

I’m not.

My understanding is that the OP is testing the waters, so to speak.

I would say, as my personal opinion, that to start a thread on it would probably be a waste of time. I had assumed it would be a project undertaken in a different way. The forum is not the right medium.

Plus, I’d rather work with you on the introductory adventure idea from the other thread. ;)

Exactly. I was testing the waters. You throw out an idea, the reaction not only shows the levels of interest and adversity the idea will face, it also provides interesting criticism to help me create a more unbiased measure for my idea (they always sound good at first, before you realize that one reason why they don't). As the BurgerBeast suggested, I will want to start a separate organizational website and podcast/stream, not a forum post. After 10 years of project management experience I've recently been working to transition to a computer science degree, with the experience and networking I've received in that time, I've developed the resources and skills to develop a project like this at a professional level. Nothing less would hold any merit.

Additionally, this idea parallels another one I've been having for a political debate system that I want to create which I will not describe here. Using a dedicated community to debate game rules could work as an initial analogue to perfecting a system before driving my concepts towards more serious ends. I think the post has shown that there's enough interest that I'd at least be able to get something useful going.

For a system like that to be successful it needs to be well thought out and carefully implemented. It'll be a while before you see me provide an initial charter, website, and plan for review and critique, but I think I'm interested in seeing what happens.

The reaction to my idea thus far has been interesting. I'd also be interested as to whether I can create an end product that would drive interest in the dissenters, as well as to more casual passers by. That would be a real challenge.

[BurgerBeast]

I'm frankly puzzled as the RAW discussions here seem incredibly "in the weeds" to me and I have a hard time imagining craving even more 'depth'.

You’re exactly right about it being “in the weeds.” That’s the thing we want less of.


How well does @MaxWilson's suggestion:

work for you?

Haven’t had time to check it out in much detail yet.


What sorts of rules questions does anyone want more depth on?

Well, essentially all of the underlying disagreements that create the weeds. There are fundamental disagreements that seem to continually pop up around, for example:

* ambiguities created by the use of abbreviations RAW and RAI, for example when JC tells us what the RAW are, but he’s paraphrasing or expanding... what is that? It’s his interpretation of the RAW, but it’s not RAW and it’s not RAI.

* What people mean by “this is the RAW” and “this is not RAW,” because there are ambiguities created by the nature of the rules, and the use of general mechanics, and the fact that rulings are called for and expected by the rules

* a clearly outlined approach to what is actually defined in the rules (as opposed to those things that are actually not defined)

* a clearly outlined approach to what constitutes an example of a rule-application versus an example of a ruling, and the extent to which either is generally applicable to similar cases

* The “specific beats general” notion and how it applies in particular cases

* clearly outlined processes for adjudication of rules-interactions and determining chronological order and establishing what takes precedent and why

* an investigation of the fluff/crunch dichotomy, if and where it exists, and how to determine whether a given instance is exclusively fluff, exclusively crunch, or contains some elements of both and to what extent

— again, nobody would be expected to follow it. But it would provide language and examples to assist in understanding of why disagreements exist. It would at least create the possibility that two people could identify, (accurately) the reasons for their disagreement, instead of continuing to talk past each other.

[GreyBlack]

3e and the WotC Internet forums during that era proved this philosophy to be utterly wrong. If you truly believe this, you either weren't a participant or are incapable of learning from history.


This may or may not be the case, but the idea that someone who wrote the rule would tell you what they meant is a decent one. That applies all the time IRL btw.

It's not that the rules lawyering was particularly bad in 3e, so much as people had well defined rules that they knew they could push to the limits of edge cases. That's not so much rules lawyering so much as extreme system mastery.

Well, in my opinion; it's fine either way.

[Tanarii]

It's not that the rules lawyering was particularly bad in 3e, so much as people had well defined rules that they knew they could push to the limits of edge cases. That's not so much rules lawyering so much as extreme system mastery. Not at all. They had complex rules, and those complex rules interacted in ways that created edge cases all over the place. It was an expected result of the deaign philosphy that it would breed rules lawyers.

And so then the forums had extended arguments about what the RAW was. And people tried to weaponize RAW. See the 'Oberani Fallacy' fallacy, or the fallacious argument that rule 0 doesn't excuse an unclear rule, for an example of that kind of distorted thinking.

No different from 5e forums really, except there are less complex rules and most people understand that the design philosophy of 5e is ultimately 'ask your DM if you aren't sure, or make a ruling if you are the DM'.

Which is not to say that RAI information from the developers doesnt carry value, nor that rai debates don't help a DM decide how they might want to rule.

Unfortunately, the flip side is there are still plenty of players who want to weaponize RAW.

[Unoriginal]

Plus, I’d rather work with you on the introductory adventure idea from the other thread. ;)

You would?

Uh, well, it's a surprise. Didn't think anyone would say something like that.

[Chronos]

It may well be that 3rd edition had too many rules, or that they were too complicated. The solution to that problem is to make the rules simpler. But that's not the conclusion that the 5e design team drew. Their conclusion was that the rules were too clear and unambiguous, and made it an explicit design goal to avoid clear and unambiguous rules in 5e. They probably didn't realize that that's what they were deciding, because the kind of mind that would think that clear, unambiguous language is bad is also the kind of mind that wouldn't recognize clear and unambiguous language. But that is nonetheless what they decided.

[Tanarii]

Making rules more clear an unambiguous makes them more complex. E.g. see any legal code.

And the cost of attempting to do so is unanticipated interactions that lawyers can use to loophole their way out of the intended result. (Edit2:) And that you end up with something that only lawyers can understand, in RPG terms people with huge amounts of system experience.

(Edit1:) The cost of not doing so is you need many more local people to arbitrate, interpret, adjudicate, and possibility even enforce. Luckily D&D in particular and most RPGs in general come with that built in, at each and every table.

The second cost is non-uniformity. That's a huge deal for some folks due to circumstances (the RPG equivalents of world travelers, they play at many tables). So it's a real concern for them.

[Sigreid]

Fair enough. I’m saying it doesn’t.

Essentially the call for a “Supreme Court” is a call for long-form, well reasoned argument. Perhaps you are satisfied that you get that here, which explains your position.

I’m not criticizing that.

But now put yourself in the shoes of someone who is underwhelmed with the depth of thought and analysis put into the RAW discussions, here.

They are craving depth and consistency and logical application at a level that they’re not getting here - hence the point of the thread.

Actually I'm saying that I can identify the people who I don't agree with but whose opinion is worthy of consideration. That said, carry on with whatever you guys think will serve you better.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Making rules more clear an unambiguous makes them more complex. E.g. see any legal code.

And the cost of attempting to do so is unanticipated interactions that lawyers can use to loophole their way out of the intended result.

Edit: the cost of not doing so is you need someone to arbitrate, interpret, adjudicate, and possibility even enforce. Luckily D&D in particular and most RPGs in general come with that built in.

The second cost is non-uniformity. That's a huge deal for some folks due to circumstances (the RPG equivalents of world travelers). So it's a real concern for them.

Right. Trying to be clear and unambiguous most often opens "loopholes." And it also sets a tone that encourages such lawyering and manipulating rules, to the point that you're playing the rules, not the game. Sure, those that routinely table-hop between non AL games and can't adapt pay a price, but they're rather the exception, not the rule.

[Unoriginal]

And the existence of loopholes show that texts which try to be unambiguous aren't.


It's the basis of what Humpty Dumpty and Alice debate in "Through the Looking Glass".

[Tanarii]

Sure, those that routinely table-hop between non AL games and can't adapt pay a price, but they're rather the exception, not the rule.
I was mainly thinking of AL games in terms of table hoppers. If players are concerned about DM consistency. AL / official play is where it's most likely to happen IMO.

And Pex of course. Extended discussions with hi has helped me understand the other PoV for multi-table consistency, specifically in regards to the ability check system, even if it's not my personal preference. So it's not like I don't see the value in discussing the rules, and various preferences.

I mainly just don't see the value of trying to imply authority, which is what calling it a Supreme Court would do. (Which seems to be an issue already raised by many others in this thread, and addressed by those interested.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was mainly thinking of AL games in terms of table hoppers. If players are concerned about DM consistency. AL / official play is where it's most likely to happen IMO.

And Pex of course. Extended discussions with hi has helped me understand the other PoV for multi-table consistency, specifically in regards to the ability check system, even if it's not my personal preference. So it's not like I don't see the value in discussing the rules, and various preferences.

I mainly just don't see the value of trying to imply authority, which is what calling it a Supreme Court would do. (Which seems to be an issue already raised by many others in this thread, and addressed by those interested.)

I'd say that AL is as consistent as it can possible get, while still giving any authority to a DM. But I can see where some might chafe at inconsistency.

At least in my city, I don't think there are that many who really table hop that frequently, even in AL. The local FLGS/AL place has its one AL DM, the other one about 20 miles away has a different one, and their tables seem relatively consistent from week to week. You get new players at their first game and people who only come sometimes, but you don't have people jumping between tables that much. But that may just be my impression.

[Tanarii]

And the existence of loopholes show that texts which try to be unambiguous aren't.


It's the basis of what Humpty Dumpty and Alice debate in "Through the Looking Glass".From what I've read about Lewis Carroll, Irrational math being irrational is the basis for every situation and conversation in that book.

Certainly the humpty conversation makes a lot more sense when you know it's supposed to be about irrational math. Having just gone back and read it. Thanks for the entertainment! ;)



At least in my city, I don't think there are that many who really table hop that frequently, even in AL. The local FLGS/AL place has its one AL DM, the other one about 20 miles away has a different one, and their tables seem relatively consistent from week to week. You get new players at their first game and people who only come sometimes, but you don't have people jumping between tables that much. But that may just be my impression.I visit 3 game stores, all near college campuses. That means they're very busy, and with people that can (if they choose) make plenty of time for gaming. So my view of AL is undoubtably skewed.

[Pex]

Right. Trying to be clear and unambiguous most often opens "loopholes." And it also sets a tone that encourages such lawyering and manipulating rules, to the point that you're playing the rules, not the game. Sure, those that routinely table-hop between non AL games and can't adapt pay a price, but they're rather the exception, not the rule.

I can adapt. I just don't like that I have to. :smallyuk:

[Max_Killjoy]

"Supreme Court" implies that this body has the final say and that their rulings are binding precedent.

If that's not what is meant, a different term should be used.

[Max_Killjoy]

Right. Trying to be clear and unambiguous most often opens "loopholes." And it also sets a tone that encourages such lawyering and manipulating rules, to the point that you're playing the rules, not the game.


5e's approach doesn't seem to have produced any different sort of result.

And in certain cases it appears that the policy of not needing to be exact and precise lead them to not be clear even when it would have been very easy and produced no "legalese" -- that is, there are spots where it just let them be lazy in their wording, or not stop to think how what was obvious to them would be ambiguous to the wider readership.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e's approach doesn't seem to have produced any different sort of result.

And in certain cases it appears that the policy of not needing to be exact and precise lead them to not be clear even when it would have been very easy and produced no "legalese" -- that is, there are spots where it just let them be lazy in their wording, or not stop to think how what was obvious to them would be ambiguous to the wider readership.

Natural language will always be ambiguous. It's one reason that machine translations are hard. Human brains don't do unambiguity very well. This means there will always be "loopholes". The difference is in how those loopholes affect the world.

5e says that any loopholes found are admissible if and only if the table agrees. 5e's fundamental policy is that the real rules are what the table decides to use, which may differ in large degree from the printed text. So legalizing the printed text is denying the central premise of the system. And by and large, the player base doesn't give much creedance to twisty rules-lawyering.

Contrast this to 3e, which took a much harder RAW-primacy tone. There the loopholes were RAW, and required explicit houserules (which people complained about) to stop. "Playing the rules" became a primary way to play and discuss the game. The expectation was that everything was allowed and that showing something obnoxious as RAW was enough to end discussion and allow that obnoxious behavior.

[BurgerBeast]

Making rules more clear an unambiguous makes them more complex. E.g. see any legal code.

Right. But nobody is going to “make the rules more clear and unambiguous.” Nobody will change the rules. Instead, they will provide a clear and as-close-to-unambiguous-as-possible framework for interpreting the rules, which will be entirely optional.


Actually I'm saying that I can identify the people who I don't agree with but whose opinion is worthy of consideration. That said, carry on with whatever you guys think will serve you better.

So you’re saying that you can evaluate an opinion before you’ve heard it, based on the identity of the speaker.

I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s still sad, though.


I mainly just don't see the value of trying to imply authority, which is what calling it a Supreme Court would do. (Which seems to be an issue already raised by many others in this thread, and addressed by those interested.)

It really does not imply this. Not especially because of context. The Supreme Court is more than just an authority. Couple this with the fact that, in the context of D&D, an RAW authority is definitively impossible, it should be obvious that this isn’t the implication. Supposing, of course, that you read with minimal charity.

Then there’s the issue of actually reading the OP. It’s clear that authority is not the aim.


"Supreme Court" implies that this body has the final say and that their rulings are binding precedent.

If that's not what is meant, a different term should be used.

See above.

1. It doesn’t imply this, in the first place.
2. Supposing it did imply this, then give the context (D&D RAW) it is a impossibility - which means is can’t be the goal unless you choose to read the OP with zero charity
3. The OP wrote what he meant, in the OP, and it is clearly not what he is describing

EDIT: I had meant to include this but was on a phone and short on time:

I do not mean to dismiss or deny the obvious assumption that a “court” would seem to mean “authority”... this is a reasonable first impression or response to the terminology...

However, it is an assumption nonetheless (i.e. not an implication), and a charitable reading would lead to my points made above

[Xetheral]

Might I suggest that a long-format symposium might accomplish the primary goals of this idea without anywhere close to as much objection from other forum-goers? The pushback is against the idea of creating an adjudicative body. I don't think anyone would object if instead you simply organized an event where participants wrote non-authoritative long-format opinions on a chosen topic.

If the participants circulated their drafts internally prior to publicly posting them, they'd each have a chance to respond to points they disagree with. Each opinion could thus stand on its own after being posted as a complete, informed statement of the author's thoughts. That would make the opinions more useful to non-forum-goers looking for opinions on a particular topic because they wouldn't need to wade through lengthy threads.

To set up such a symposium you'd need one or more organizers, a method for selecting participants, an agreement amongst participants to use particular definitions of ambiguous terminology relating to interpretation (e.g. RAW/RAI), and a standardized format for opinions. Most importantly, you'd need enough skilled writers as participants who are willing to invest the substantial time required to write and revise their opinions.

I'd suggest making each topic a separate symposium, and avoid any mention whatsoever of being a court or other authoritative panel. Even still, it's likely that the effort as a whole (and the participants) will be deried as taking roleplaying games way too seriously. But if you want to do it anyway, I think you'll have far more success with a series of symposiums than you ever would with a court.


Making rules more clear an unambiguous makes them more complex. E.g. see any legal code.

This isn't always true. I'd agree it's generally true because: (1) improving clarity without increasesing complexity takes more time than improving clarity by using more words, or (2) the topic being discussed is itself so nuanced that there doesn't exist a possible formulation that is both unambigous and concise. But for any given text, if #2 doesn't apply, then clarity can be increased without extra complexity simply by investing more time into writing it. (Caveat: extra time will be subject to diminishing returns, and the skill of the writer plays a large role.)

In my experience, the complexity of legal codes is the result of both problems. But D&D is much less nuanced than real life, and I suspect that the ambiguities in the rules could each have been written more clearly without increasing complexity if the writers had had more time.

[Sigreid]

So you’re saying that you can evaluate an opinion before you’ve heard it, based on the identity of the speaker.

I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s still sad, though.



Or, you know, over time people develop a track record that you can use to do a bit of filtering.

Edit: and now that I think about it this whole idea seems to revolve around the idea of "somebody" identifying a group of people whose track record is solid enough in their opinion to give them a forum to express their opinions completely filtered out from the larger group of interested parties.

[Tanarii]

This isn't always true. I'd agree it's generally true because: (1) improving clarity without increasesing complexity takes more time than improving clarity by using more words, or (2) the topic being discussed is itself so nuanced that there doesn't exist a possible formulation that is both unambigous and concise. But for any given text, if #2 doesn't apply, then clarity can be increased without extra complexity simply by investing more time into writing it. (Caveat: extra time will be subject to diminishing returns, and the skill of the writer plays a large role.)
IMO its usually the case because it requires using more precise terms. And those more precise terms need to be defined and understood by all participants.

This applies even when using natural language of course. There are plenty of more precise words as opposed to common use words in the English language. But they arent going to be as well known.

[zlefin]

Right. But nobody is going to “make the rules more clear and unambiguous.” Nobody will change the rules. Instead, they will provide a clear and as-close-to-unambiguous-as-possible framework for interpreting the rules, which will be entirely optional.



So you’re saying that you can evaluate an opinion before you’ve heard it, based on the identity of the speaker.

I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s still sad, though.



It really does not imply this. Not especially because of context. The Supreme Court is more than just an authority. Couple this with the fact that, in the context of D&D, an RAW authority is definitively impossible, it should be obvious that this isn’t the implication. Supposing, of course, that you read with minimal charity.

Then there’s the issue of actually reading the OP. It’s clear that authority is not the aim.



See above.

1. It doesn’t imply this, in the first place.
2. Supposing it did imply this, then give the context (D&D RAW) it is a impossibility - which means is can’t be the goal unless you choose to read the OP with zero charity
3. The OP wrote what he meant, in the OP, and it is clearly not what he is describing

EDIT: I had meant to include this but was on a phone and short on time:

I do not mean to dismiss or deny the obvious assumption that a “court” would seem to mean “authority”... this is a reasonable first impression or response to the terminology...

However, it is an assumption nonetheless (i.e. not an implication), and a charitable reading would lead to my points made above

if you're going to insist on charitable interpretations, it would behoove you to be more charitable in your reading of others as well.

and it's very easy to evaluate an opinion before you've heard it. while you can't get 100% accuracy, there's vast amounts of evidence to indicate a degree of consistency in the quality of opinions; just as it is for other things. and there's lots of people who're reliably not worth listening to as well, and due to the nature of the internet, you tend to hear a lot from such people.

[MeeposFire]

Generally I think people are better served being shown how to evaluate opinions and statements for themselves that way when they see something they do not need to go to someone to tell them if it is any good. Besides from what i have seen getting a good range of ideas is not a problem here and even getting good arguments for and against these ideas are easy to find. The problem is when the arguments get nasty and that it is so hard for people to let go because really most of what you see here really does not matter.

[Yunru]

1. It doesn’t imply this, in the first place.It most definitely does. Court is where Law is decided, Supreme is the top. That's literally what the words chosen mean.

Anyway, a court without authority is doomed to failure anyway. I don't get the point of the thread. The ambiguity doesn't cease to except because people decide to ignore it, so having a bunch of people decide how it should and shouldn't be ignored just seems... pointless.

[2D8HP]

...now that I think about it this whole idea seems to revolve around the idea of "somebody" identifying a group of people whose track record is solid enough in their opinion to give them a forum to express their opinions completely filtered out from the larger group of interested parties.


I nominate:

@Tanarii for "Chief Justice"

@Unoriginal for "Prosecutor"

@Max_Killjoy for "Defense Counsel"

and

@Aaedimus (the O.P.) for "Court Reporter"

[moonfly7]

it's a great idea, but it should be made very clear these are just opinions and the personal interpretations of the court, not law in any way

[moonfly7]

Also, has anyone considered people like SilverClawshift or Kaveman for the court? Those two really know the game better than most.

[moonfly7]

Also, is this for a specific system like 5e, or for any system of dnd?

[Yunru]

This isn't always true. I'd agree it's generally true because: (1) improving clarity without increasesing complexity takes more time than improving clarity by using more words, or (2) the topic being discussed is itself so nuanced that there doesn't exist a possible formulation that is both unambigous and concise. But for any given text, if #2 doesn't apply, then clarity can be increased without extra complexity simply by investing more time into writing it. (Caveat: extra time will be subject to diminishing returns, and the skill of the writer plays a large role.)
There's also the problem of wanting the text to match a theme and/or tone. Some of the hardest parts of my homebrews tends to be transcribing a simple idea (E.G. An aura with radius 5*Proficiency modifier feet) into the same tone that the rest of the PHB uses. On my crib notes it's clear, concise, and open to no interpretation, but try to describe it without using formulae? Eurgh.

[BurgerBeast]

It most definitely does. Court is where Law is decided, Supreme is the top. That's literally what the words chosen mean.

No, it most definitely does not. Court is not where law is decided, it is where law is interpreted. The Supreme Court is where unprecedented cases are taken for a panel of experts to interpret the law as it applies to those cases. And, when it does so, the Supreme Court doesn’t simply rule on the matter. They write out long-form rationales for their decisions, because doing so models a way of thinking, and it can be used by lower court judges as a reference with which to evaluate future cases. It is not simply authoritative. It is, for example, transparent, thorough, and instructive (all of which are independent qualities, with their own merits that can be worth emulating).

These other functions/qualities of the Supreme Court, which are the ones that the OP is based on, have nothing to do with its authority.

To zero in on the authoritative quality, and insist that it is necessary of anything that is modelled upon the Supreme Court, is nonsense. It is even more nonsensical when you have the rationale of the OP, who has made it apparent what his goal is.


Anyway, a court without authority is doomed to failure anyway. I don't get the point of the thread.

Of course you don’t. If you assume the goal is authority, but it can’t have authority, then it is pointless because it can’t meet the goal. You’d think that might be a clue: the goal isn’t to be an authority.

The goal is to produce arguments that are deep and thorough and grounded in reason and evidence, to be used as desired by those who are interested, to inform their own decisions and stimulate thought - which happens to be a historically established function of the Supreme Court as well. It is also independent of any authority the Supreme Court has.

[Yunru]

The goal is to produce arguments that are deep and thorough and grounded in reason and evidence, to be used as desired by those who are interested, to inform their own decisions and stimulate thought

So... why is cherry picking people needed for that?

[langal]

You all have to expect that less than one percent of the ppl who play this game will "abide" by the court's decrees. Less one percent of the ppl on this board.

If you all want to make a podcast or something for fun then that's great...seems a bit heavy handed (and pompous actually) to declare yourselves the "expert" and final "arbiter" of how this game should be played.

[Aaedimus]

To create a quality product with a certain level of legitimacy. If someone doesn't understand a concept, or have the skills to break down and effectively communicate ideas they'll just be creating static that will create an end product that contains a bunch of useless forgettable essays with little no no worth, rather than creating an organized library of precident and carefuly thought out discussion and investigation.

If you make sure the selection process is democratic it further increases legitimacy and gives those not writing and investigating the concepts skin in the game.

After the papers are published im sure they'd be debated and critiqued as well, which is good! A DM or player with curiosity or who wanted to understand the inticricies of the system could pull out and read through a catalogued decision and have a greater understanding of what that decision was based on, and how making different decisions would effect their own games.

[JoeJ]

To create a quality product with a certain level of legitimacy.

Legitimacy is the one thing that it absolutely can't have unless WotC does it. Otherwise, all it can ever be is just another opinion on the internet.

[Aaedimus]

You all have to expect that less than one percent of the ppl who play this game will "abide" by the court's decrees. Less one percent of the ppl on this board.

If you all want to make a podcast or something for fun then that's great...seems a bit heavy handed (and pompous actually) to declare yourselves the "expert" and final "arbiter" of how this game should be played.

No one is declaring themselves an expert. Like I said, the idea is to have a community democratically select the court.

And I see a much higher level of interest just in this post than what you just alluded to.

[KorvinStarmast]

Re: Idea: D&D rule interpretation supreme court
All that a court does is attract lawyers ... rules lawyers.
We need less of that, not more.
One vote against this bad idea.

There is already a site (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/) that does something similar enough to this that what you propose is also redundant.

[Aaedimus]

Legitimacy is the one thing that it absolutely can't have unless WotC does it. Otherwise, all it can ever be is just another opinion on the internet.

There are different kinds of legitimacy. I will pay more attention to 40 year old D&D veteran who has proved their expertise in understanding the concepts than a teenager, even if they say the same things because the more experienced one with a portfolio had built up a level of legitimacy that isn't official but is much more likely to have value

[zlefin]

To create a quality product with a certain level of legitimacy. If someone doesn't understand a concept, or have the skills to break down and effectively communicate ideas they'll just be creating static that will create an end product that contains a bunch of useless forgettable essays with little no no worth, rather than creating an organized library of precident and carefuly thought out discussion and investigation.

If you make sure the selection process is democratic it further increases legitimacy and gives those not writing and investigating the concepts skin in the game.

After the papers are published im sure they'd be debated and critiqued as well, which is good! A DM or player with curiosity or who wanted to understand the inticricies of the system could pull out and read through a catalogued decision and have a greater understanding of what that decision was based on, and how making different decisions would effect their own games.

what makes you think any papers at all would be published? that you'd find people willing to put in the level of work required to make papers, (and that possess the requisite rigor). or that any would care to read such if created? the number of people who read law for fun is quite low after all. You're welcome to try of course, I just don't see much actually happening.

there's also of course the vast amounts of known problems with using democratic systems to select "judges". but it's hard to get into that on the boards.

[Yunru]

There are different kinds of legitimacy. I will pay more attention to 40 year old D&D veteran who has proved their expertise in understanding the concepts than a teenager, even if they say the same things because the more experienced one with a portfolio had built up a level of legitimacy that isn't official but is much more likely to have value
This... is everything that disgusts me.
And the... utter hypocrisy of suggesting a "council of experts" and then saying who says something mattets more than what is said...

I'm out.

[Unoriginal]

There are different kinds of legitimacy. I will pay more attention to 40 year old D&D veteran who has proved their expertise in understanding the concepts than a teenager, even if they say the same things because the more experienced one with a portfolio had built up a level of legitimacy that isn't official but is much more likely to have value

That's not really true. Matt Cloville is a veteran D&D person who literally wrote books for it, but I sure as hell don't consider him more legitimate than a teenager.

And it's a good thing I don't, since the guy doesn't think that bugbears are stealthy.

[Tanarii]

A symposium is an interesting idea, but who is going to participate in it?

I've never gotten the impression that anyone who participatesin this forum is active enough in the RPG world in general, or D&D in particular, that their opinion would carry any particular weight.

Even one made up of designers, streamers, and bloggers wouldn't necessarily carry much weight. For example if it was Cloville, Mercer, Heinsoo, and Crane some might find it interesting. But I'll give more weight to an Aldandrian or AngryDM blog any day of the week.

And I'd be willing to bet all of those 6 would laugh at the idea of an in-depth RAI analysis symposium in the first place.

[MeeposFire]

A symposium is an interesting idea, but who is going to participate in it?

I've never gotten the impression that anyone who participatesin this forum is active enough in the RPG world in general, or D&D in particular, that their opinion would carry any particular weight.

Even one made up of designers, streamers, and bloggers wouldn't necessarily carry much weight. For example if it was Cloville, Mercer, Heinsoo, and Crane some might find it interesting. But I'll give more weight to an Aldandrian or AngryDM blog any day of the week.

And I'd be willing to bet all of those 6 would laugh at the idea of an in-depth RAI analysis symposium in the first place.

Besides if we want to such a thing we can already do that here and if you want to prevent outside voices from getting in it is certainly possible to make your own little echo chamber if that is what somebody wants.

As for selecting people for such a thing one person's expert is another person's hack so good luck with that.

[Max_Killjoy]

1. It doesn’t imply this, in the first place.
2. Supposing it did imply this, then give the context (D&D RAW) it is a impossibility - which means is can’t be the goal unless you choose to read the OP with zero charity
3. The OP wrote what he meant, in the OP, and it is clearly not what he is describing


Then the OP should have chosen words that meant what he meant, and didn't mean something else (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_court).

Kinda like the 5e writers in some cases.

[Ventruenox]

It feels like the obvious choices for such a council have already made themselves known.

Tanarii
Unoriginal
Korvin_Starmast
Strangebloke
JoeJ

And their first session would go thus:

As our first matter of business, let us put forth the motion to dissolve this council.

All: Aye!

Very well. Motion passes, all further cases will be closed with "Ask your DM." Court is adjourned.

(This post is designed for levity, not to dismiss other long standing and respected members not directly named.)

[2D8HP]

Also, has anyone considered people like SilverClawshift or Kaveman for the court? Those two really know the game better than most.


I've never heard of them.


There are different kinds of legitimacy. I will pay more attention to 40 year old D&D veteran who has proved their expertise in understanding the concepts than a teenager, even if they say the same things because the more experienced one with a portfolio had built up a level of legitimacy that isn't official but is much more likely to have value


In this thread both KorvinStarmast and Joe J have been playing D&D for over 40 years, and off the top of my head Tanarii had put in more table hours than most by far.


It feels like the obvious choices for such a council have already made themselves known.

Tanarii
Unoriginal
Korvin_Starmast
Strangebloke
JoeJ

And their first session would go thus:

As our first matter of business, let us put forth the motion to dissolve this council.

All: Aye!

Very well. Motion passes, all further cases will be closed with "Ask your DM." Court is adjourned...


Speak of the Devils!

(Strangelove and Unoriginal are great choices as well!)

[Unoriginal]

(Strangelove and Unoriginal are great choices as well!)

I am? :smallconfused:

[2D8HP]

I am? :smallconfused:


Yes you are :amused:

[Unoriginal]

Yes you are :amused:

Not seeing it, but if you say so.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not seeing it, but if you say so.

Imagine my surprise at being nominated...

[Yunru]

Not seeing it, but if you say so.
Going with the obvious choice is Unoriginal :P

[Torpin]

there is already a supreme court at your table. its called the DM
per the DMG
"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

whenever a player argues rules with me during a session I tell them "well thats not how it works right now" and they can talk to me about it after the session.

[BurgerBeast]

Then the OP should have chosen words that meant what he meant, and didn't mean something else (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_court).

Kinda like the 5e writers in some cases.

Well, let’s go back and look at the OP, to see where he suggested that he wanted an authority to make rulings that everyone must follow. (Emphasis added throughout.)


...I think having a vetted group of D&D enthusiasts, possibly with education or expertise in non-D&D legal and/or logic to write opinion pieces providing rulings and dissenting opinions with sources and in depth ----- may have its merits.

He’s calling for opinion pieces... not authoritative declarations of the true RAW. He’s specifically suggesting dissenting opinions be provided... not exactly the usual behaviour of a dictator.


...It would obviously be an opt-in system where DMs would say: in public games, "I refer to rulings and from the Sigil Court" or something during my games. Also, if players or DMs get in an argument, they could say: "let's see what the Court says". It would keep people on the same page, and avoid possible conflict.

An opt-in system, which could - could - be used as a source of information to inform interested parties involved in disagreements.


I also think it could be really fun! I don't know about you, but I'd happily read a 7 page decision and/or dissenting opinion with sources and examples.

You could have applicants to the court provide a sourced thesis paper on a controversial topic along with personal credentials to apply for a position and than be voted in (there would be a voter registration process)

It would have to start with a court constitution or something... does anyone else think this would be fun??? Or am I just weird lol

He’s obviously spit-balling ideas here, suggesting it could be fun, and couching every suggestion behind “could.”

It’s quite the stretch to accuse him of trying to impose any sort of authority whatsoever.

[BurgerBeast]

So... why is cherry picking people needed for that?

You don’t necessarily need to cherry pick people. You need to peer-review the opinion pieces, to select the best available.

This is the sort of thing that you can become better at through conceptual understanding.

You don’t need to “cherry-pick” what you read, but it makes sense to consider lists of the greatest books ever written if you want to read the best. You’ll learn more from Dostoyevsky about human nature than you will from the average randomly-selected book at your local library.

[SpanielBear]

You don’t necessarily need to cherry pick people. You need to peer-review the opinion pieces, to select the best available.

This is the sort of thing that you can become better at through conceptual understanding.

You don’t need to “cherry-pick” what you read, but it makes sense to consider lists of the greatest books ever written if you want to read the best. You’ll learn more from Dostoyevsky about human nature than you will from the average randomly-selected book at your local library.

But that’s surely part of the point- you aren’t choosing “the greatest books” from a non-biased source, and even then you need to account for taste. I won’t look at a list of great books if I want an easy read, and I won’t look at a (not)supreme (not)court if all I want in a game is mutual fun with like-minded friends. This isn’t an argument that such a thing shouldn’t exist, more making the point that it’ll only appeal to those who want it, so go ahead and make it with them. But you can’t expect people who aren’t interested in what you’re selling to give you any other reaction than “eh, it’s not for me”.

[strangebloke]

Rules exist for one reason only: to make things easier for the DM.

I have played a lot of diceless, rules-light games over the years. Its fun. But running them is hard and you need really good players who are willing to work with you.

In DND, by contrast, I can say "a manticore attacks you" and bam, I've got the next hour of the session accounted for. Even if my players are morons who aren't paying attention and don't really understand what's going on, they'll late enjoy the complex, punchy combat system. It works well.

So yeah, RAI discussions are great because they help the DM appreciate what the rules are supposed to do, and gives them confidence in their own rulings.

But this forum really isn't the place for consensus building. This is a place where threads will rage on for eternity with no clear resolution or winner. Reddit or stack exchange is much better for consensus building.

[qube]

If I may make a note - If ya'll go through with this, I would suggest rules contain the following:

the evidence on which the ruling will be based (things such as RAW, Sage Advice, but also hypothetical senarios) - so that a ruling isn't somethign in a void, but people can see how the conclusion is reached
multiple rulings, not just 1 final conclusion - but a ruling that keeps in mind that not everyone plays with the same ruleset
RAW - what does the actual text say
RAI - how does it seem to be intended to be used
RAF - or more specifically: What does it break if ruled this way / what does it break when ruling the opposite.
(it's under RAF, as, inherently, on the short term, saying "sure go ahead" usually increases the fun of the game, but sometimes a on these on the spot rules can create problems down the line)

[BurgerBeast]

But that’s surely part of the point- you aren’t choosing “the greatest books” from a non-biased source, and even then you need to account for taste. I won’t look at a list of great books if I want an easy read, and I won’t look at a (not)supreme (not)court if all I want in a game is mutual fun with like-minded friends. This isn’t an argument that such a thing shouldn’t exist, more making the point that it’ll only appeal to those who want it, so go ahead and make it with them. But you can’t expect people who aren’t interested in what you’re selling to give you any other reaction than “eh, it’s not for me”.

Yeah. You’ve nailed it.

I do expect people to say, “it’s not for me.” That’s fine.

But some people are saying it’s a pointless endeavour, even for the people who like this sort of thing. Those are the people I’m addressing.

[BurgerBeast]

If I may make a note - If ya'll go through with this, I would suggest rules contain the following:

the evidence on which the ruling will be based (things such as RAW, Sage Advice, but also hypothetical senarios) - so that a ruling isn't somethign in a void, but people can see how the conclusion is reached
multiple rulings, not just 1 final conclusion - but a ruling that keeps in mind that not everyone plays with the same ruleset
RAW - what does the actual text say
RAI - how does it seem to be intended to be used
RAF - or more specifically: What does it break if ruled this way / what does it break when ruling the opposite.
(it's under RAF, as, inherently, on the short term, saying "sure go ahead" usually increases the fun of the game, but sometimes a on these on the spot rules can create problems down the line)


This is an interest take. I was envisioning it differently - not that my way is any better.

I was envisioning it as concerned only with RAW. So, even things like Sage Advice would be sources of bias. There would still be room for multiple interpretations, because there is room in the RAW for multiple interpretations, so there would still be room for the opinions to discuss various possibilities.

[JoeJ]

It feels like the obvious choices for such a council have already made themselves known.

Tanarii
Unoriginal
Korvin_Starmast
Strangebloke
JoeJ

And their first session would go thus:

As our first matter of business, let us put forth the motion to dissolve this council.

All: Aye!

Very well. Motion passes, all further cases will be closed with "Ask your DM." Court is adjourned.

(This post is designed for levity, not to dismiss other long standing and respected members not directly named.)

And immediately after adjournment, I'd suggest that since we're already gathered together, let's play D&D. Because playing D&D is way more fun than talking about D&D.


I've never heard of them.

In this thread both KorvinStarmast and Joe J have been playing D&D for over 40 years, and off the top of my head Tanarii had put in more table hours than most by far.

Wait, I've been playing for how long?!?!? <stops to count> Oh my gosh, you're right! <sigh> I feel old now.

[Unoriginal]

And immediately after adjournment, I'd suggest that since we're already gathered together, let's play D&D. Because playing D&D is way more fun than talking about D&D.

Amen.

Then again playing by forum isn't the best.

[SpanielBear]

Yeah. You’ve nailed it.

I do expect people to say, “it’s not for me.” That’s fine.

But some people are saying it’s a pointless endeavour, even for the people who like this sort of thing. Those are the people I’m addressing.

Then you probably want to call it something different than a Supreme Court.

Because if you call it a Supreme Court in a thread titled “Supreme Court”, I’d gently suggest that it isn’t surprising that people react as if you want to start a Supreme Court.

[Sigreid]

Then you probably want to call it something different than a Supreme Court.

Because if you call it a Supreme Court in a thread titled “Supreme Court”, I’d gently suggest that it isn’t surprising that people react as if you want to start a Supreme Court.

Yeah, if it were presented as finding a group that was interested in reviewing rules and writing analysis to academic standards that would be made available to interested parties, I think there wouldn't be any problem. I think a lot of people are seeing it the way it was presented as another weapon "that" player would use to try to control the DM's rulings at the table.

[TheUser]

Ok. Let's give this a quick test-drive:

QUESTION:
Does the Simulacrum of a Diviner get to roll new portent dice?

Hop to it "supreme court"

[JoeJ]

Ok. Let's give this a quick test-drive:

QUESTION:
Does the Simulacrum of a Diviner get to roll new portent dice?

Hop to it "supreme court"

It's up to the DM.

[TheUser]

It's up to the DM.

I see a trend forming....

[Pex]

Yeah, if it were presented as finding a group that was interested in reviewing rules and writing analysis to academic standards that would be made available to interested parties, I think there wouldn't be any problem. I think a lot of people are seeing it the way it was presented as another weapon "that" player would use to try to control the DM's rulings at the table.

Or use it as an excuse to say I'm wrong on the internet having badwrongfun for not agreeing with their rules or opinions of a matter.

[Sigreid]

Or use it as an excuse to say I'm wrong on the internet having badwrongfun for not agreeing with their rules or opinions of a matter.

Yep. Agreed

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or use it as an excuse to say I'm wrong on the internet having badwrongfun for not agreeing with their rules or opinions of a matter.


Yep. Agreed

Yeah. This phenomenon of people weaponizing rules to "win" arguments is part of what has turned me off of the whole concept of RAW as a useful thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

As our first matter of business, let us put forth the motion to dissolve this council.

All: Aye!

Very well. Motion passes, all further cases will be closed with "Ask your DM." Court is adjourned.
You left out the beers. I must find you in contempt of court! *gavel slams* Sentenced to play Four Elements Monk in AL for three months.
:smallbiggrin:

Because playing D&D is way more fun than talking about D&D.
Correct. Do I start rolling up a character now, or are we doing point buy?

Wait, I've been playing for how long?!?!? <stops to count> Oh my gosh, you're right! <sigh> I feel old now. Dude, it ain't the age, it's the mileage. :smalleek: (I think I am due for overhaul next month ...)

Then again playing by forum isn't the best. But it can be fun. (And fun's why we play)


QUESTION: Does the Simulacrum of a Diviner get to roll new portent dice?

Hop to it "supreme court" This question does not have standing.
First, the PC has survive long enough to be able to cast that spell.
Then, we talk. :smallbiggrin:
(Bribery by pizza is not yet a chargeable offense in this jurisdiction, but laws and rules have been known to change before ...)

[BurgerBeast]

Then you probably want to call it something different than a Supreme Court.

Because if you call it a Supreme Court in a thread titled “Supreme Court”, I’d gently suggest that it isn’t surprising that people react as if you want to start a Supreme Court.

And I’d suggest anyone who reacts in this way should stop. Take a breath. Think. Consider that the person who said this might not be a power-obsessed control-freak. (Because seriously, how little charity is required to assume that the OP is not that stupid?)

Ask yourself if maybe “Supreme Court,” the highest court in the largest and (arguably) most democratic society on earth, might represent something more than the legal authority to control others.

Then, actually read what the OP says. Notice the subtle difference between:

1. Oh my god! He said “Supreme Court!” The only thing this can possibly mean, and the only thing anyone can possibly think he means, is that he wants to take control of every 5e table on earth and force them to play his way! (Take a moment to suppress the realization that this can’t matter anyway since this would be impossible, and continue to panic).

2. Wonder about what the OP must mean, since the connotation that came to your mind when you heard “Supreme Court” doesn’t seem like something a reasonable person would say. Give the OP enough benefit of the doubt to actually read what he said before you decide to make accusations about what he must mean since he used the word X. If you’re not willing to read what he meant, then maybe don’t bother commenting since it is almost certain that your comments will miss the point.

And try to go with (2).

And stop giving unsolicited advice.*

And stop being a perpetuator of “trigger warning” culture. You’re better than that.

* Irony intended. Fire with fire and all that.

[BurgerBeast]

Yeah, if it were presented as finding a group that was interested in reviewing rules and writing analysis to academic standards that would be made available to interested parties, I think there wouldn't be any problem. I think a lot of people are seeing it the way it was presented as another weapon "that" player would use to try to control the DM's rulings at the table.

Why?

Why didn’t I get that impression?

Seriously.

Read the OP again. Where in earth do you find any justification for this?

In the words “Supreme Court”?

Give me a break. Have some self-respect, and respect for the OP, and respect for the people on this forum who can read without panicking irrationally at the first sign of a word that might be (wrongly) taken to be authoritarian.

/beginsarcasm/ Perhaps these forums are too dangerous, after all. As this thread has clearly established, there is a line of ravenous control freaks who want more than anything to come to YOUR table and force YOU to play by the ONE TRUE WAY. /endsarcasm

[SpanielBear]

And I’d suggest anyone who reacts in this way should stop. Take a breath. Think. Consider that the person who said this might not be a power-obsessed control-freak. (Because seriously, how little charity is required to assume that the OP is not that stupid?)

Ask yourself if maybe “Supreme Court,” the highest court in the largest and (arguably) most democratic society on earth, might represent something more than the legal authority to control others.

Then, actually read what the OP says. Notice the subtle difference between:

1. Oh my god! He said “Supreme Court!” The only thing this can possibly mean, and the only thing anyone can possibly think he means, is that he wants to take control of every 5e table on earth and force them to play his way! (Take a moment to suppress the realization that this can’t matter anyway since this would be impossible, and continue to panic).

2. Wonder about what the OP must mean, since the connotation that came to your mind when you heard “Supreme Court” doesn’t seem like something a reasonable person would say. Give the OP enough benefit of the doubt to actually read what he said before you decide to make accusations about what he must mean since he used the word X. If you’re not willing to read what he meant, then maybe don’t bother commenting since it is almost certain that your comments will miss the point.

And try to go with (2).

And stop giving unsolicited advice.*

And stop being a perpetuator of “trigger warning” culture. You’re better than that.

* Irony intended. Fire with fire and all that.

Good grief.

[2D8HP]

....yhere is a line of ravenous control freaks who want more than anything to come to YOUR table and force YOU to play by the ONE TRUE WAY. /endsarcasm


Wait a second...

...volunteers will come handle rules memorization and adjudication for me so I don't have to?

Sign me up!

I may even start allowing more than one player to have a spellcasting PC at a time! :cool:

[Tanarii]

Wait a second...

...volunteers will come handle rules memorization and adjudication for me so I don't have to?

Sign me up! Hahahaha as a mostly recovering rules lawyer, this is exactly how I scratched my itch. By being the guy who knows the rules and interpretations, only offers them when asked by the DM, and can state options so a DM can make a ruling.

That worked really well for official play (both 4e and 5e). New to DMing players that are a bit scared to try running a game tend to chill out if they have a resource handy with decades of DM experience and a lot of rules osmosis for the current edition, provided they've somehow also taught themselves to keep their trap mostly shut and let the newbie DM

Although I must say it was a mite hard. Keeping my mouth shut does NOT come naturally.

---------

Also yes I have a lot of 5e table time. I run 3-5 sessions (typically 3-4 hours each) a week, depending on if I double-book weekends or not. But the vast majority of it is DMing single class and no feats and T1 / T2. That limits my areas of DMing table time experience with 5e rules pretty drastically.

[Pex]

Hahahaha as a mostly recovering rules lawyer, this is exactly how I scratched my itch. By being the guy who knows the rules and interpretations, only offers them when asked by the DM, and can state options so a DM can make a ruling.

That worked really well for official play (both 4e and 5e). New to DMing players that are a bit scared to try running a game tend to chill out if they have a resource handy with decades of DM experience and a lot of rules osmosis for the current edition, provided they've somehow also taught themselves to keep their trap mostly shut and let the newbie DM

Although I must say it was a mite hard. Keeping my mouth shut does NOT come naturally.

---------

Also yes I have a lot of 5e table time. I run 3-5 sessions (typically 3-4 hours each) a week, depending on if I double-book weekends or not. But the vast majority of it is DMing single class and no feats and T1 / T2. That limits my areas of DMing table time experience with 5e rules pretty drastically.

I'm like you in this way. During my 3E years the DM wanted me to be the rules lawyer. I played with the same group for 12 years. I used to not be one, but I got into the habit. The DM appreciated when I mention a clarification hurts a party member as well as those times it helped. He was still the DM and did overrule official stuff such as there's a circumstance I don't know about that changes the parameters or prefers his way better than the official rule. I kept the role when I moved to Pathfinder and now in 5E. Each time the DM wanted me to be the rules lawyer even if he is changing the rule just so it's on record.

When I joined a 5E game where the DM did not want me to be the rules lawyer it was hard to stop. He doesn't mind a once in a while clarification if he's unsure about something and I told him my rules lawyer history, but he did emphasize the fun of play trumps RAW and that's fine. I still slip up sometimes blurting out a rule is being used wrong, and I hate myself doing it, but I'm learning to let it go especially when a player is in his or her fun spotlight moment. I don't want to burst the bubble and the minor rules error is not breaking the game into unplayability. When another player catches it I feel better. The most common rules errors are casting a level spell & Healing Word as a bonus action and not rolling a range attack with disadvantage against a prone target. Everyone including the DM is caught up in the moment of awesomeness being Debbie Downer, Game Rules at Law would be the worst thing I could do.