My personal "how to read rules" guidelines

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll be clear--I don't really care for RAW vs RAI vs whatever. The rules are more like the pirate's code, guidelines and suggestions. But I do like to start my thinking with the printed words and go from there. Most of the time, the printed suggestions are good enough.

That said, I have a set of "rules" (more heuristics, rules of thumb) for reading rules. So far, they've worked really well--most of the time, Sage Advice is either "yeah, of course" or "I can see how you got that, but I don't like that ruling". It's extremely rarely "WTF?"

So here are the rules I use to read the rules. Note: "favor" doesn't mean "is totally correct", it means "give greater weight to." Similarly (but opposite) for disfavor. Sometimes things are broken.

1. Read in context. Favor readings that consider the entire context of a rule element. Usually a paragraph or the entire ability/spell/etc at minimum. Disfavor readings that isolate words, phrases, or hinge on particular grammatical constructs (such as tense, word choice, etc).

As a sub-point: disfavor readings that try to force words and phrases to only mean one thing, despite being in different contexts. Only defined terms (such as Attack Action or condition names) have fixed meanings--everything else derives meaning from context.

2. Assume competence and non-malice by default. Favor readings that paint the developers as knowing what they're doing, at least to some degree, and that paint them as working toward some sort of rough balance. Disfavor readings that produce contradictions, absurdities, or broken stuff. If there are two readings and one is less broken (in any direction), prefer that one. Disfavor readings that make abilities or pieces of abilities useless.

3. What you see is what you get. Abilities do what they say they do, not more or less. The rules do not hide elephants in mouseholes. Disfavor readings that give extra power/capabilities to certain abilities based on "clever" readings or combinations of words from different abilities. Similarly, disfavor readings that cause abilities to be surplus and not do anything (like #2 above).

4. Rules give permission more often than they give restrictions. Most rules are couched in positive terms. They tell you what you can do (beyond the things everyone can do). They don't tell you all the things you can't do. This means disfavoring readings based around absence of prohibition (ie "it doesn't say I can't X").

5. Rules only interact when they say they do. This is a specialized variant of #3--rule interactions tend to be explicit. Their interactions are clear, not hidden in cross-referencing several abilities. As a result, disfavor readings that reason from other, facially-unrelated rule elements. You can't extract a general rule from exceptions. One of the key cases here is spells--each spell is self-contained (unless it says it interacts with other spells). You can't reason that because spell X acts in a certain way, spell Y should also act that way unless spell Y says it acts like spell X.

6. Most importantly: Rules are servants, not masters. Rules exist to help people have fun playing the game. If a reading results in people at your table having less fun, pick a different reading that doesn't. No matter what other people (including the developers) say about it. There is no trophy for "follows RAW best"; there are no D&D police to break down your door for "playing it wrong." There is only your table and its needs. Sure, be intentional and thoughtful about changes or choices. But don't feel you need permission to do so from anyone outside your own play group. Unless you're in AL, in which case sucks to be you :)

[KorvinStarmast]

Your last sentence got a laugh out of me.

My golden guideline is "don't treat game rules like computer code"

[PhoenixPhyre]

My golden guideline is "don't treat game rules like computer code"

Yeah. Very much so. Heck, even most computer code doesn't work the way rules lawyers try to make the rules work. Nor, incidentally, do real life lawyers and legal codes. Try any of the tricks I see on these forums and you'd get slapped with a Show Cause order (basically "tell my why I shouldn't fine you a bunch of money and report you to the bar for discipline" from a judge, reserved for totally baseless arguments or fraud on the court generally).

[NaughtyTiger]

Is this how you read for your table, or how you read for giantitp discussions?

If it is how you read for your (or i read for my table) then really only #6 matters. Because the DM needs to have a resolution quickly and that resolution doesn't really need to be consistent with other rulings or readings or power creep.

If it is for giantitp discussions, i wanna throw out the following points:
#3 - we have different interpretations of baselines vs extra power
#4 - rules clearly don't cover all the cases (or even most), so you have to make "reasonable" assumptions about the stuff that isn't mentioned.

[Brookshw]

Yeah. Very much so. Heck, even most computer code doesn't work the way rules lawyers try to make the rules work. Nor, incidentally, do real life lawyers and legal codes.

As a real life lawyer who runs a game for a bunch of engineers, can confirm. Pretty sure we screw most of the rules up anyway.

[Reynaert]

Also, #3 is completely subjective, and I would even go so far as to call it circular.
Anyone honestly arguing anything about anything will say "that's what they say they do, no more, no less".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also, #3 is completely subjective, and I would even go so far as to call it circular.
Anyone honestly arguing anything about anything will say "that's what they say they do, no more, no less".

#3 is more a warning against readings that rely on "logic" not presented in the ability. Magic missile says it hits creatures. So it hits creatures. It can't be used to, say, break objects. And this goes double for the kinds of "well, if you read this word here and cross-reference against that word over there and squint, you see "TOTAL SUPERPOWER!"" readings I see fairly casually (and were the basis for most 3e "exploits").

[KorvinStarmast]

As a real life lawyer who runs a game for a bunch of engineers, can confirm. Pretty sure we screw most of the rules up anyway. But have fun nonetheless, right? :smallwink:

[Brookshw]

But have fun nonetheless, right? :smallwink:

One can only hope :smallbiggrin:

[SLOTHRPG95]

Overall good rules, and many of them are reminiscient of Grice's Maxims. It's a pet peeve of mine when people on this forum (or in person) try to interpret the rules by bending or flat-out ignoring best principles in semantics and pragmatics.

[Chronos]

5. Rules only interact when they say they do.
This is a problem, because all rules interact. The question is never whether they interact, but how. You're saying that you favor the minimal interaction, but it's almost never well-defined just which interaction that is.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is a problem, because all rules interact. The question is never whether they interact, but how. You're saying that you favor the minimal interaction, but it's almost never well-defined just which interaction that is.

It's actually fairly clear in most cases IMO. Specific exceptions (spells, features, etc) interact with the more general rules in a fairly obvious fashion, and generally call out specific overrides that aren't obvious. For example, all spells need a clear path to target unless
1) they don't have targets in the rules sense (ie teleportation/conjuration) and wouldn't function if you tried to enforce a clear path to target
2) they say they don't (sacred flame, fireball spreading around corners).
But since there isn't a general rule about needing to see your target, knowing that hold person requires sight tells you nothing about firebolt (or any other spell).

Another example--spells and abilities call out what can end their conditions if not stated otherwise. Another example--shield says that it protects against magic missile. Without this callout, it would have no interaction.

Generally, most exception-to-exception interactions are called out directly and explicitly. The point of this heuristic is to caution against reading extra interactions into those that are either required for stated functionality or are explicitly called out. Basically, rules should be read (opinion!) in the way that creates the shallowest exception hierarchy possible. So if one reading says that X overrides Y which overrides Z and another has a 10-step override chain, prefer the first (all else being equal).

[Chronos]

Another example--shield says that it protects against magic missile. Without this callout, it would have no interaction.

And Shield also protects against Thorn Whip, and Ray of Frost, and Scorching Ray, and a bunch of other spells, despite not having a specific callout for them. There's an interaction, because the Shield spell and those other spells all interact with the attack rules. Everything interacts.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And Shield also protects against Thorn Whip, and Ray of Frost, and Scorching Ray, and a bunch of other spells, despite not having a specific callout for them. There's an interaction, because the Shield spell and those other spells all interact with the attack rules. Everything interacts.

You're referencing more of a non-specific interaction. If there were no callout specifically for this interaction there would be no indication that they interact at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And Shield also protects against Thorn Whip, and Ray of Frost, and Scorching Ray, and a bunch of other spells, despite not having a specific callout for them. There's an interaction, because the Shield spell and those other spells all interact with the attack rules. Everything interacts.

It interacts with the attack rules. Those other spells interact with the attack rules. The heuristic is against presuming direct interactions between exceptions, not mediated by changing game state. Basically, "don't couple rules that don't say they're coupled." Spells interact with the global rules independently. Thorn Whip doesn't care that it's shield raising the AC; all it looks at is the AC. Defensive Duelist or the Parry action both have identical effects. On the contrary, magic missile does care that it's shield, specifically, and ignores both of those others.

[Chronos]

OK, here's a specific example of what I mean: There's another current thread on Darkness and lights from Magical Tinkering (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?641446-Darkness-and-Magical-Tinkering-Lights). How do they interact? If you say "they don't", then you end up wit an area that's both dark and illuminated. One of them necessarily trumps the other, and either way, it's an interaction.

[PhoenixPhyre]

OK, here's a specific example of what I mean: There's another current thread on Darkness and lights from Magical Tinkering (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?641446-Darkness-and-Magical-Tinkering-Lights). How do they interact? If you say "they don't", then you end up wit an area that's both dark and illuminated. One of them necessarily trumps the other, and either way, it's an interaction.

Darkness says it trumps nonmagical light and light from spells of level < 2. Magical Tinkering Lights are magical (by explicit statement) and not from spells. Thus, darkness's rules don't interact at all, and the more general rule (things are lit up if there are lights there) are in effect.

This is actually a perfect example of how the "don't presume interaction" heuristic works--if you presumed that they interacted directly (instead of the interaction being mediated via the general rules that they both inherently interact with), then you'd have to decide whether MTL was a spell of < level 2. But you don't, because Darkness already fails to apply on its face. So the interaction is between the general rules about visibility which clearly state that light (generically) illuminates (generic) darkness.

Darkness interacts with
* the generic vision rules (implicitly) when the ambient light (if any) is caused by
** non-magical light (by explicit statement)
** magical light created by spells with spell level < 2 (by explicit statement)
* the generic vision rules when visibility would be provided by regular darkvision (explicitly)

It does not create an exception to
* the generic vision rules when the ambient light is caused by anything not stated above--this is the heuristic's role, saying that the absence of an explicit exception means the exception should not be presumed to be applicable unless it's absolutely necessary for the thing to function
* the generic vision rules when visibility is provided by Devils Sight (or similar features) because those features say they overcome the Darkness spell. If they didn't, then they'd fall into the darkvision category and be trumped by the spell. And the heuristic here supports that--the only reason they interact with the Darkness spell differently is that they say they do. If they didn't, if devils only had Darkvision, then Darkness would win.

Darkness has specific interaction rules with how it interacts with lights. But outside of those specifically stated cases, it doesn't apply at all. Does nothing. Is not an exception to the general visibility rules in the presence of such light.

To phrase it differently, "prefer explicit to implicit interactions. Readings that rely on implicit interactions between exceptions aren't as strong, all else equal, as those that rely on explicit interactions between exceptions or interactions between general rules and exceptions."

Implicit interactions are harder to reason about and much less easily discovered, and much more contentious. An ability saying it does X is strong evidence; having to dig through a chain of rule interactions where none of them come out and say that's what they're doing is much weaker evidence.

And note--these are heuristics, not rules. And they say "prefer" or "give greater/less weight to", not "accept" or "reject".

[Chronos]

Darkness says it trumps nonmagical light and light from spells of level < 2. Magical Tinkering Lights are magical (by explicit statement) and not from spells. Thus, darkness's rules don't interact at all, and the more general rule (things are lit up if there are lights there) are in effect.
And Darkness also says that it produces darkness. So you have something that produces darkness, and something that produces light. The darkness source doesn't say that it trumps magical nonspell light, but the light source also doesn't say that it trumps magical darkness. But one of them must trump the other, or you get a nonsensical situation.

[Scots Dragon]

Your last sentence got a laugh out of me.

My golden guideline is "don't treat game rules like computer code"

Oh so much of this. So many silly interpretations come from the idea of interpreting specific bits of wording in weird ways they were never meant to be interpreted. It's basically unbearable in third edition discussions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And Darkness also says that it produces darkness. So you have something that produces darkness, and something that produces light. The darkness source doesn't say that it trumps magical nonspell light, but the light source also doesn't say that it trumps magical darkness. But one of them must trump the other, or you get a nonsensical situation.

It produces normal darkness, plus some explicit things it does extra (because it says it does them). The general rules for vision say that light trumps darkness (more precisely that darkness doesn't exist in the presence of light). So unless the light falls into one of the specific exceptions in the spell, it trumps the darkness.

The interaction is between the general rules and the specific exceptions. That's always there. Read darkness, read the ability. They don't interact directly. Thus, refer to the general rules, which are your fallback. Done.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Oh so much of this. So many silly interpretations come from the idea of interpreting specific bits of wording in weird ways they were never meant to be interpreted. It's basically unbearable in third edition discussions.

Hard agree. It's basically the main reason that I stopped reading/posting threads in the 3.X subforum.

[DarknessEternal]

As a player, you don't get to trick the DM with rules loopholes. The DM is not a computer. So don't even try to interpret things in a loophole fashion.

As the DM, if you try to trick your players with rules loopholes, you're a jerk. Become a better person.

It's a game for everyone to have fun.

[Yora]

Why I can totally see that people would read rules as permissive ("can't do, unless stated"), I think that has a big impact on the kind of game you're going to play. And of course depends very much on the kind of game you want to play.
But I am leaning very strongly into the other direction to read rules as restrictive ("can do, unless denied").

I feel this could be an issue of whether you want to play a game in which the players are supposed to create solutions by working with the rules, or by by working around the rules. As I see it, the unique option of RPGs as a medium, and therefore their great strength, is that the GM can react to any potential player action by applying common sense judgements on the spot, without being restricted to a set of predetermined conditions. "Make stuff up within established boundaries" is an approach that is more strongly utilizing that unique potential, compared to "find effective combinations for a limited set of pieces".

Though I think 3rd and 4th edition have established a now long tradition of permissive rules reading that has found a large audience that greatly enjoys that style of playing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

People can attempt anything. But there's no guarantee of it working, or even expectation of it working (or how it will be adjudicated), unless a rule says so.

I'm particularly hard line on magic--interacting with the world is fine. I'll generally let you try and not auto fail unless it's really in fiction not reasonable or it would be getting class features for free. Non magic has inherent limits in the fiction. But spells? Do exactly and only what they say. Magic is a black box. Each spell stands alone.

Otherwise, it's way too easy to just cheese everything and the setting falls apart, because D&D magic doesn't have the same intrinsic limits.

And the entire design is around exceptions (abilities acting as permission), with prohibition as a very far secondary mode. Nothing says you can't turn into an ancient dragon at level 1, after all. But no sane DM is going to let you.