[rules meta] what even is rules text, anyway

[rrwoods]

Lots of debates recently about “such and such is clearly fluff text” with responses akin to “how do you know”.

The answer is “no one knows” because WotC didn’t see fit to clearly delineate fluff and rules in the books. Some books have italicized flavor text for spells (and other subsystem elements). A lot don’t. That’s about the closest thing to a clear delineation we get. The rest is up to us, as individual GMs and players, to *decide*.

NOT “determine”. “Decide”. I used that word on purpose. You can’t divine the authors’ intent here.

So: This thread is intended to be a collection of forum users’ decisions on what’s fluff and what’s rules, and why they choose to interpret things that way at their table.

I’ll start. To me, everything that’s not in the “obviously flavor text because it’s italicized at the start of a spell description” category is probably rules text, with most exceptions being made because they cause dysfunctions. These exceptions are case by case and never set precedent. (That is, it could be the case that reading the header text of a particular feat as rules text causes a contradiction. At my table, this invalidates only that feat’s header text, not feat header text generally.)

[Biggus]

Well, in some cases it's pretty clearly spelled out, for example classes have a section headed "game rule information".

But in general I very much agree that there isn't an iron wall between "fluff" and "crunch". In some cases you can only properly interpret the way something works by looking at the descriptive text.

I don't really have a rule as to how I decide which is which, beyond "does it make sense in context?". While you can't ever be 100% certain of the designers' intent, in a lot of cases you can get pretty darn close to it.

[gijoemike]

If it is in the rule book it is a rule. This means that all "Fluff" text is part of the rules as it helps a player visualize what the X is supposed to do. If you flat out ignore something because it just fluff, you are flat out doing it wrong. I have always seen the "Fluff" text as additional rules info on the intent/visualization of a spell/item/ritual/power/feat/X.

[Raven777]

There's an interesting Pathfinder exemple I saw a couple days ago, with the Talisman of Pure Good.


A good divine spellcaster who possesses this item can cause a flaming crack to open at the feet of an evil divine spellcaster who is up to 100 feet away. The intended victim is swallowed up forever and sent hurtling to the center of the earth. The wielder of the talisman must be good, and if he is not exceptionally pure in thought and deed, the evil character gains a DC 19 Reflex saving throw to leap away from the crack.


... choose one creature you can see on the ground within 120 feet of you. If the target is of evil Alignment, a flaming fissure opens under it. The target must succeed on a DC 20 Dexterity saving throw or fall into the fissure and be destroyed, leaving no remains. The fissure then closes, leaving no trace of its existence.

The player characters acquire one such talisman in the third book, with one charge remaining. They are about 10th-12th level at the moment of acquisition, and the authors probably presumed the talisman would be used in short order on some cultist or another, or maybe the same book's more powerful villains, and thought not much more of it. But much later, in the fourth book, now in the 15th-16th level range, the player characters are confronted by the Demon Lord Baphomet's own daughter, herself a much more powerful Cleric of Baphomet, and suitably ferocious final combat encounter of the book. Guess what happened? Note, Pathfinder's version offers no saving throw at all if the talisman's weilder is deemed sufficiently pure, probably at the GM's discretion. As a Paladin, the player character who remembered the Talisman was deemed such.

But then there was a problem related to the Adventure's Path conclusion and cliffhanger supposed to lead to the next book: As his daughter dies or flees, Baphomet himself is supposed to use her as a conduit to manifest himself into the world, challenging the characters. The adventure never accounts for the daughter just... getting irretrievably swallowed up by the very earth.

How is Baphomet supposed to manifest now? Can the GM interpret that the talisman's primary effect is merely to slay an evil divine spellcaster, while the manner of death and leaving a corpse behind is up to the teller's tale? Or is dying specifically by being "swallowed up forever" an absolute component of the rules arbitrating that item's function? There's also the fact that the wording in the PF version of the talisman does not ever claim to slay the victim. It merely sends her "hurtling to the center of the earth". Forever.
Also, the 5E version "destroys and leaves no remains", whereas the PF function "swallows forever and sends hurtling to the center of the earth". Does that mean in the PF version, there's a window of time where the target could possibly be retrieved and saved, since she's not specifically "killed" or "destroyed"? Using the spell Freedom comes to mind, since the use case sounds similar to countering Imprisonment. Or a Wish or Miracle. But then again, the Talisman itself is a minor artifact, so what scope of magic should be allowed to counter it is also up for debate. Is "forever" part of the rule and cosmic fiat will literally thwart any attempt at retrieval?

A possible solution to these dilemmas would be a robust system of keywords and tags. If something is a [Death] effect with the consequence of slaying the character, the description should identify it as such. If something is a [Desintegration] effect leaving no remains behind, it should be said. If it is a [Banishment] with the scope limited to sending the target away, compared to an [Imprisonment] where the target is sequestered until specific conditions are met, it should be clearly identified. If an effect is [Irrevocable] up to and including wishcraft or divine intervention, it should be stated. And the rules should have a robust dictionary of all these effects' implications, as much as it already does with many others like Sickened or Staggered.

But I don't think such a perfect system could ever cover all use cases. Which is why 99% of the time, authors and players don't really bother and roll with rule of cool. As it should be.

[Elves]

There's no inherent distinction between fluff text and rules text (except for italicized descriptive text, which is clearly non-mechanical). Fluff text is a name for text that isn't mechanically relevant, usually because it doesn't form a functional mechanical statement and/or isn't in the relevant section.

[InvisibleBison]

There's no inherent distinction between fluff text and rules text (except for italicized descriptive text, which is clearly non-mechanical). Fluff text is a name for text that isn't mechanically relevant, usually because it doesn't form a functional mechanical statement and/or isn't in the relevant section.

You've omitted what I think is the most frequent reason why someone describes something as fluff: Because if it was a rule, whatever they're trying to do wouldn't work.

[Elves]

You've omitted what I think is the most frequent reason why someone describes something as fluff: Because if it was a rule, whatever they're trying to do wouldn't work.
Boo. I don't know if that's really fair. I've been consistent in my stance in any case.

[InvisibleBison]

Boo. I don't know if that's really fair. I've been consistent in my stance in any case.

Oh, I certainly wasn't trying to criticize you (or anyone in particular). My post was probably at least one-third a joke, to be honest. But that attitude does crop up on occasion, and I thought it deserved mention.

[RandomPeasant]

I think if you have reached the point in a rules debate where you are trying to decide whether or not a particular line from the book you're talking about is "rules text" or "fluff text", that debate is never going to have a productive conclusion. At a certain point, you need to be able to accept that the rules are unclear or insufficient, and the correct thing to do is modify the rules (or write some new ones) rather than tying yourself into knots trying to wring the conclusion you want out of RAW.

[mattie_p]

I think if you have reached the point in a rules debate where you are trying to decide whether or not a particular line from the book you're talking about is "rules text" or "fluff text", that debate is never going to have a productive conclusion. At a certain point, you need to be able to accept that the rules are unclear or insufficient, and the correct thing to do is modify the rules (or write some new ones) rather than tying yourself into knots trying to wring the conclusion you want out of RAW.

You must be new here. Tying ourselves into knots trying to wring the conclusion we want out of RAW is kind of our thing.

In all seriousness welcome aboard.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho most parts of the game have clear rules what is part of the (rule mechanical) effect(s) and what not.

We have rules how you have to read:

- Class descriptions (PHB p23)
- Skill descriptions (PHB p66)
- Feat descriptions (PHB p89)
- Spell descriptions (PHB p172)
- Magic Item descriptions (DMG p215)
- Monster descriptions (MM p5)

All big parts of the core game have clear rules to differentiate the rule text (which have a mechanical impact) and the fluff text (which don't have an impact on ruling). Any parts that are not defined as having an impact on the mechanics bears no right to be interpreted as rule text.

E.g. the short description after a feat title is not part of the Benefit/Special: sections and thus is considered *fluff*, since no permission for making mechanical rule changes where given for that section. And it is even referring to the use of "plain language" which is an indicator for non-rule/fluff text.

All categories define which parts of their descriptions may have a real impact and create/change rules.

[InvisibleBison]

E.g. the short description after a feat title is not part of the Benefit/Special: sections and thus is considered *fluff*, since no permission for making mechanical rule changes where given for that section. And it is even referring to the use of "plain language" which is an indicator for non-rule/fluff text.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. As far as I know, the rules never say that "plain language" is an indicator for non-rules text. Moreover, if your interpretation is correct, than there are some feats that simply don't work, such as the Armor Proficiency feats, which only say that they actually give you proficiency in their respective type of armor in the "plain language" section.

[Starbuck_II]

Also, the 5E version "destroys and leaves no remains", whereas the PF function "swallows forever and sends hurtling to the center of the earth". Does that mean in the PF version, there's a window of time where the target could possibly be retrieved and saved, since she's not specifically "killed" or "destroyed"? Using the spell Freedom comes to mind, since the use case sounds similar to countering Imprisonment. Or a Wish or Miracle. But then again, the Talisman itself is a minor artifact, so what scope of magic should be allowed to counter it is also up for debate. Is "forever" part of the rule and cosmic fiat will literally thwart any attempt at retrieval?


Yeah, it does sound like Imprisonment spell.
Without that, Baph is out of luck and world saved.

[Crichton]

As has been noted, it's a bit muddy, and the general rule is that every rule will have exceptions.


But typically, what is and it's a rules text comes down to what that text says. As Elves noted above, if the passage of text doesn't make a statement that has a mechanical relevance to the game rules (eg. 'you gain +2 on Jump checks), then it's not really a rule. I suppose you could call it a rule if you really wanted to, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't say anything relevant to the actual rules.


For example, crack open your PHB and turn to the Races section. Under Half-Elves, there's a great big descriptive section that says stuff like "Most half-elves have the curiosity, inventiveness, and ambition of the human parent, along with the refined senses, love of nature, and artistic tastes of the elf parent."
Ok, that's great, but it doesn't contain any rules, because it doesn't say anything with mechanical relevance to the game.
But under the 'Half-Elf Racial Traits' header, we see items of text such as "+2 racial bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information checks: Half-elves get along naturally with all people."
That actually DOES something in the rules, so it's rules text.


It's the same in the Feats section. Take a look at Acrobatic:

"ACROBATIC [GENERAL]" - Ok here's the name of the feat? Is that a rule? No.

"You have excellent body awareness and coordination." - That sounds great but this text doesn't actually DO anything to the rules

"Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Jump checks and Tumble checks." - And here is the actual rules text, because the text actually changes the mechanisms of the rules of the game.




So when people say things like 'if it's in a rulebook it's rules text'? Well sure, I guess if that's how you want to look at it. But from a practical standpoint, if it doesn't say anything that has a specific, measurable effect on the game rules, it's not really a rule, is it?

[GreatWyrmGold]

More than a dozen posts in and the only decently concrete example of when the distinction between rules and not-rules could matter is a single minor artifact with a poorly-worded effect. Alrighty.


For RAI, the difference is semantic at best; your DM (and every other player) makes interpretations based on both the rules of the game and the in-universe thing that rule is supposed to represent. At the end of the day, both rules and fluff are valid reasons to say X doesn't work, because D&D is supposed to be about making interesting narratives more than solving mechanical challenges. (That's why Pun-Pun is treated as an amusing thought experiment rather than a viable character build.)

For RAW, I'd say that "rules" extend as far as they need to to cover whatever needs you come across. For instance, the PHB2 spell rouse has an italicized text saying that "any sleeping creatures in the spell's area awaken"; in the rest of the PHB2 spellbook, italicized text is generally flavor text, but here it refers specifically to the "spell's area" (and contains the actual effect of the spell). I would say that the italicized text should be considered part of the Rules for Rules-As-Written discussions.

But RAW is used as a thin excuse to ignore common sense as often as not; when that's true they're going to ignore any text they don't like, and when it's not they're usually engaged with something a bit more interesting than "Does rouse actually do anything?"

[RexDart]

"ACROBATIC [GENERAL]" - Ok here's the name of the feat? Is that a rule? No.

"You have excellent body awareness and coordination." - That sounds great but this text doesn't actually DO anything to the rules

"Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Jump checks and Tumble checks." - And here is the actual rules text, because the text actually changes the mechanisms of the rules of the game.


So when people say things like 'if it's in a rulebook it's rules text'? Well sure, I guess if that's how you want to look at it. But from a practical standpoint, if it doesn't say anything that has a specific, measurable effect on the game rules, it's not really a rule, is it?

That's an especially clear rule, though. What if it said "You get a +2 bonus on all skill checks that involve gymnastic exertion?" (That would be pretty rare for 3rd edition D&D, but I've seen other games that were this vague about stuff.)

You would then have to consult other sources, and might say "Hey, look, Wikipedia says acrobatics is "the performance of human feats of balance, agility, and motor coordination." And you might actually conclude that it applies to Tumble checks and Balance checks, but *not* Jump checks. Or you might focus on the "body awareness and coordination" bit to aid in interpretation. Or you might look to official published material describing characters using the Acrobat feat, etc.

But in the rule as actually written, it would clearly be off-base to suggest that the "Acrobat" feat applies to Balance checks, because the rule is clearly written and not subject to any plausible alternative interpretation.

Looking at how the pros do this (statutory interpretation) can be helpful for analyzing game rules, and isn't particularly difficult:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/A-Guide-to-Reading-Interpreting-and-Applying-Statutes-1.pdf

[AnimeTheCat]

As has been noted, it's a bit muddy, and the general rule is that every rule will have exceptions.


But typically, what is and it's a rules text comes down to what that text says. As Elves noted above, if the passage of text doesn't make a statement that has a mechanical relevance to the game rules (eg. 'you gain +2 on Jump checks), then it's not really a rule. I suppose you could call it a rule if you really wanted to, but it doesn't matter, because it doesn't say anything relevant to the actual rules.


For example, crack open your PHB and turn to the Races section. Under Half-Elves, there's a great big descriptive section that says stuff like "Most half-elves have the curiosity, inventiveness, and ambition of the human parent, along with the refined senses, love of nature, and artistic tastes of the elf parent."
Ok, that's great, but it doesn't contain any rules, because it doesn't say anything with mechanical relevance to the game.
But under the 'Half-Elf Racial Traits' header, we see items of text such as "+2 racial bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information checks: Half-elves get along naturally with all people."
That actually DOES something in the rules, so it's rules text.
Well... this really kind of depends. The rule book saying how most half-elves act is really important for building your NPCs if you're trying to make a world very consistent with the official setting. This description might very well be rules binding in the sense that you have to work with the player and if they're playing an oddity of their race (i.e. not the norm) they're likely to be treated differently by members of their same race. Or perhaps they'll be treated one way initially by other races, based off of that racial expectation, until they have more interactions. It's not just fluff as it actually dictates circumstantial bonuses to interactions. Circumstances change bonuses and penalties all the time, and are fully in the DM's wheelhouse to adjudicate. Therefore, that stuff about describing them could be very important, if you're playing using the official setting for all races.



It's the same in the Feats section. Take a look at Acrobatic:

"ACROBATIC [GENERAL]" - Ok here's the name of the feat? Is that a rule? No.

"You have excellent body awareness and coordination." - That sounds great but this text doesn't actually DO anything to the rules

"Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Jump checks and Tumble checks." - And here is the actual rules text, because the text actually changes the mechanisms of the rules of the game.

So when people say things like 'if it's in a rulebook it's rules text'? Well sure, I guess if that's how you want to look at it. But from a practical standpoint, if it doesn't say anything that has a specific, measurable effect on the game rules, it's not really a rule, is it?

The name also has the [General] tag next to it, which is important for a variety of reasons. It's identifying that it isn't a metamagic feat, and thus you can't take it at Wizard level 5, for example. But beyond that, it's also important again for circumstance bonuses. It would not be outside of the realm of reason for a DM to award a Barbarian or Rogue with the Acrobatic feat an additional circumstance bonus to avoiding traps, for example. Perhaps you might grant an additional circumstance bonus to catch arrows or something, again perhaps a +1.

Circumstance bonuses are not limited to what is explicitly outlined in the book and usually stack with each other. They change depending on the circumstances, of which the "fluff text" that you outlined above, might change.

[Darg]

Look at weapon focus:


Weapon Focus [General]

Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat.

Prerequisites
Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit
You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Special
You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

A fighter may select Weapon Focus as one of his fighter bonus feats. He must have Weapon Focus with a weapon to gain the Weapon Specialization feat for that weapon.

Grapple and Rays are special attacks, not weapons. Without the plain text saying they are options it would be impossible to even extrapolate that they are options for the feat.

The plain text tells what the feat does. Or it tells you what the feat is meant to represent. It could be either and there is no delineation between the two options. There are so many things in the rules that make no sense without what many consider "fluff." A lot of times it has gameplay consequence if not mechanical relevance.


For instance, the PHB2 spell rouse has an italicized text saying that "any sleeping creatures in the spell's area awaken"; in the rest of the PHB2 spellbook, italicized text is generally flavor text, but here it refers specifically to the "spell's area" (and contains the actual effect of the spell). I would say that the italicized text should be considered part of the Rules for Rules-As-Written discussions.


They are called Descriptive Passages by the spell compendium. It also has this to say on the subject: "The descriptive passages shouldn’t be considered to be binding rules." It implies that they are rules, but not steadfast ones as they might not be valid for all creatures or circumstances and therefore need adjustment to meet the need of the situation. As that is the case it still fits with the description text description about how everything in the spell description is rules text.

[Jurai]

Rules text is text on the card that is not in italics, contained in parentheses, or both.

In all seriousness, rules text tends to mention the numerical result of a spell or ability if it has one.

[Darg]

Rules text is text on the card that is not in italics, contained in parentheses, or both.

In all seriousness, rules text tends to mention the numerical result of a spell or ability if it has one.

D&D is not that simple. Should I then ignore the text of weapon focus that says I can chose grapple or rays as the beneficiary of the feat because they are not a weapon?

[tterreb]

3.5 isn't nearly consistent enough to set hard and fast rules that will apply in every situation. And, really, there's not much value in making the distinction. If something affects the mechanics of the game it's clearly rules text. If it doesn't, it's fluff text. But even if you call it rules text anyways it's function doesn't change as there's nothing in it that changes how the game is played.