How Close to RAW do You Stay?

[SteveLightblade]

Obviously in rules light games such as Powered by the Apocalypse, this really isn't a thing to bring up. However, in games that are known to have a sizeable amount of rules (D&D, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, GURPS, Traveller, the list can go on), there is usually an amount of discretion to how rules can be followed. How close do you follow the rules of a game?

In my games, it depends on how much I know about the system. If it's a system I know very well and have run several games in, I will stay very close to the rules. I typically don't allow homebrews unless it's an altered stat block on my end, and I will follow the rules to the letter to the ability I know. However, if I am new to running a game using a system, and get to a situation where there might be special rules, but I don't know them, I'll just say "screw it" and make up something similar to how other things in the system function.

[Witty Username]

RAW is to facilitate discussion, not to use during play.
Whether something is RAW, or using RAW as a framework is to form a consistent discussion topic. In actual play, houserules and DM rulings should gradually overtake RAW.

[Anonymouswizard]

It depends on the system. If it's a Jenna Moran game, like Chuubo's Marvelous Wish Granting Engine or Nobilis (curse the secondhand market) probably very closely. The rule, setting, and theme are much more interconnected than your average game, and each reinforces the others.

In D&D combat is mostly RAW and for the rest we likely aren't pulling out the book. This really applies to anything that's mainly a combat engine.

[MoiMagnus]

The extreme case for me is Paranoia: I'm reasonably experienced at GMing oneshots of it, and when I GM I usually do it for players who never touched the rulebook => the RAW can wait in the corner of the room while I ignore 50% of the rules.

On the other extreme, if I barely know a system, I might be somewhat distant from RAW due to ignorance, but I'll try my best to stick to it as the goal is to understand how the system works before I start to houserule.

Then, there is the case where both me and my players are experience with the system. In which case deviations from RAW that are "player-facing" will be proceeded or followed by a discussion with them on "do we all agree that RAW doesn't match our taste on this point?". I'll deviate from RAW on "GMing-facing" things (like monster stat blocks) on a regular basis.

[Yora]

I do make some substantial changes to mechanics, but I generally try to make those to aspects that I think need complete replacement and avoid making smaller tweaks that I think are more elegant and just plain better, but won't really have noticeable impacts on outcomes.
I try to make my D&D campaign so that players can drop in without much preparation work required on their part. And that means avoiding small and easy to miss tweaks that are not really necessary to make the game work. I don't change damage dice on specific spells or tinker with feats. As the players are concerned, I am mostly working with whitelists. They get a small document that lists all the character races they can pick from, the classes and specializations they can pick from, and a shortened lists for weapons and armor that is available from smiths in the setting. But all the abilities that come from these remain almost fully unchanged and continue to work just as they are written in every PHB.

[NichG]

I generally do between major subsystems added to full system rewrites from the ground up for each campaign. Stuff for the world is created at need, and new mechanics for player stuff also get generated on the fly when applicable. Such things are subject to adjustment as needed, but I always discuss changes and offer a rebuild or change of decision if it would matter to a player's build.

I basically don't care at all about RAW.

[Mastikator]

I only diverge from RAW in three scenarios
1) It makes no sense, versimilitude and immersion should not be sacrificed for RAW
2) I forget the rules and make a adjudication that breaks for RAW. I prefer to keep things consistent so if I mess up I prefer to have a conversation with my players about changing back to RAW
3) Houserules, but I actually prefer not to use houserules as it is extra book keeping. And if a system needs lots of houserules to be functional/fun then that is a bad system IMO (looking at you 3rd edition of D&D)

The reason I want to play by RAW at all times is so players can reasonably plan their actions ahead and not feel punished by an unfair hidden rule that totally screw them over. I've been in that seat many times and it always feels like total BS. :smallsigh:

[icefractal]

In my games, it depends on how much I know about the system. If it's a system I know very well and have run several games in, I will stay very close to the rules. I typically don't allow homebrews unless it's an altered stat block on my end, and I will follow the rules to the letter to the ability I know. However, if I am new to running a game using a system, and get to a situation where there might be special rules, but I don't know them, I'll just say "screw it" and make up something similar to how other things in the system function.Funny, for me it's the reverse.

If I don't know a system well, I'll probably stick to the rules, and not use 3PP content because I'm not sure how to evaluate it.

But for a system like PF1 that I know very well, I'll more freely use/allow 3PP content, tweak rules (the main limiter being how much extra the players need to remember), and homebrew stuff. If the players were new I'd try to avoid changes to player-facing rules though, so as not to make the learning curve steeper.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have lots of changes I'd like to make. But I tend to stick fairly close to default in most cases anyway. Because testing and selling a group on a serious overhaul is way too much work. Plus, I often play with new players and don't want to teach them "bad" habits.

That's not too say that I don't homebrew. Because I do. It's just additive, not altering existing rules. Adding monsters, items, and such is different than taking an axe to the concept of a class spell list, for example.

[Glorthindel]

Depends on whether I like the rules ;)

Ultimately, I am happy to scrap and re-write whole sections of rules if they are unnecessarily clunky, get in the way, push players towards a specific playstyle, or run counter to basic common sense or the specific fantasy the campaign is going for. In the case of classes and spells, I will tend to blacklist rather than rewrite unless a player really wants to use it, but in the case of rules (like Mounted Combat, frankly awful) I will rewrite as needed. RAW holds no special place, and you shouldn't let some nebulous desire for purity of game to get in the way of making a better one.

I do get concern that players need to know what to expect, so I never change a rule mid-campaign without a full group discussion (and maybe a trial of the new version before full commitment to it), and I always provide a sheet prior to the campaign with every rule change on it, so no-one is ever surprised.

[Pauly]

RAW is important for
- consistency
- facilitating a changing player base
- equity before the rules (specifically preventing the loudest complainer getting changes in their favor)

I’m all for strict RAW when it comes to the core rules, and avoid games that fall apart if strict RAW is used. By core rules I look at character creation, combat, skill checks and depending on the game/setting maybe a few more.

Optional or bolt on subsystems such mounted combat, sailing in D&D can be replaced. However they need to be written, agreed to and the replacement is treated as RAW.

Things like monster stat blocks, difficulty checks etc are treated as suggestions, not carved in stone and handed down from the mount.

[Telok]

The first time or two playing or running I'll try to stick quite close to the books. This is based on the assumption that the people who wrote it played, tested, match checked, and tried to break the game, before fixing the rough problem areas and then releasing.

After that its open season on the rules. Add stuff, black list, rewrite, whatever. Its all been done when I'm DMing. When playing I just avoid the bad parts of the system as much as I can.

[Stonehead]

I stick pretty close to RAW. The exceptions are almost all flash rulings I make to avoid slowing down the game. If I can't remember like, how disarming works for example, I'll just improvise some ruling immediately, and look up how it's actually handled between sessions.

The reason for those exceptions is pretty obvious. Immersion and game-speed are more important to me and my group than perfect balance.

The reason I rarely deviate from RAW aside from that is a bit more complicated. The amount of budget, between writers, playtesters, designers, etc that goes into a publicly released game is pretty crazy. Way beyond the scope of what a single DM could do. So in terms of polish, my homebrew would be far inferior. Players also come into the game with an expectation of how things will work. I don't want to pull a bait-and-switch on anyone, where they sign on to play Pathfinder or whatever, and end up playing "Stonehead's custom Pathfinder-based rules pdf.

Most importantly, I personally can't really remember many times where as a player, I've appreciated a DM's homebrew, and that's definitely not because I've never seen it. I'm not talking about settings or plots or monsters or magic items, I mean homebrewed rules. Changes to the system itself. Every attempt at a rules overhaul has made the experience quite a bit worse for me (although it might have made it better for the DM, not sure). Changes to the rules have pretty big ripple effects throughout the game that the DM's I've played under either haven't taken into account, or just haven't cared about. This says something about the people I personally have played with, and nothing about you and your homebrew, which I'm sure is great.

The only things that I've seen work are super minor, like ignoring carrying weight or using the Pathfinder diagonal measurements in other systems. Things of that scale.

[KorvinStarmast]

Pretty close, since I want to be able to answer questions to players who bother to check them.
Where we vary, or where I have to make a ruling, I communicate that to the players.
With reasonably well informed players I ask for their input: "does this feel right to you?"
For those who barely know the rules I don't find that approach to add any value.

[Psyren]

I mostly play 5e these days; we stick close to the book but it's important to realize that the book not only encourages but often requires DM adjudication in multiple spots, particularly regarding the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars of play. "Rulings not rules" in other words. I think the game is better off for not being written in pseudocode legalese like a stack of MTG cards.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mostly play 5e these days; we stick close to the book but it's important to realize that the book not only encourages but often requires DM adjudication in multiple spots, particularly regarding the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars of play. "Rulings not rules" in other words. I think the game is better off for not being written in pseudocode legalese like a stack of MTG cards.

Yeah. "RAW" includes explicitly lots of DM adjudication, decision making, etc. in 5e. And I think the game is better for that.

[Easy e]

RAW is secondary to making sure the tempo stays high and things stay fun during a game.

[RedMage125]

I stick pretty close to RAW, no matter what edition I'm playing. For one reason, and one reason only: I like my players to be familiar with the rules. That is, they should be able to look something up in a book, and expect it will work that way. If it still requires DM adjudication (like some of 5e, or perhaps something about the rule is unclear), they can ask me.*

I do have some House Rules, but not many (more for 3.5e than 4e or 5e). And they're pretty player-friendly. All of my House Rules are, of course, explained to players in advance. I firmly believe that anything that works different from what the books say is something the players should be notified of in advance.

*Note (and this has only happened once): If there is a rule, but we can't find it in a fashion timely enough to keep the game going, I am going to make a ruling that I think is fair and we move along. If the players want to bring it back up, they can do so after the session is over. If we find something in the RAW that expressly says the way I ruled was incorrect, I will usually amend that and proceed going forward, and my earlier decision will either be retconned, or I will make it up to the player somehow in-game, whichever we decide is best.

[Vahnavoi]

If I brought a rule book or an adventure module with me, it's because I expect to use it. On the other hand, the rules I do use typically deliberately cover only some ground, meaning that by the rules as written, a lot of things are up to referee adjucation. This is a really common feature of rules as written that is often neglected. :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the other hand, the rules I do use typically deliberately cover only some ground, meaning that by the rules as written, a lot of things are up to referee adjucation. This is a really common feature of rules as written that is often neglected. :smallwink:

Agreed on both facts.

[kyoryu]

If I brought a rule book or an adventure module with me, it's because I expect to use it. On the other hand, the rules I do use typically deliberately cover only some ground, meaning that by the rules as written, a lot of things are up to referee adjucation. This is a really common feature of rules as written that is often neglected. :smallwink:

100%. Well-written systems can be run RAW specifically because they leave areas up to adjudication.

There always needs to be some wiggle room. You can design it in, or not. I prefer systems that design it in, so the rest of the game can be run either RAW or with enumerated house rules.

[Easy e]

The ONLY thing a game really needs to function is a mechanic for players to determine success or failure at a task. There, I stick to RAW as close as I can. That is the only rules that really matter.

The rest doesn't matter as much, so GM Fiat/adjudication/RAI for all of the rest. That includes the results of those success and failures.

[Stonehead]

100%. Well-written systems can be run RAW specifically because they leave areas up to adjudication.

There always needs to be some wiggle room. You can design it in, or not. I prefer systems that design it in, so the rest of the game can be run either RAW or with enumerated house rules.

That's a good point I've never heard put into words that way. Even systems that claim not to be subject to GM fiat still require them to make rulings and flash judgements. Just because of like, the nature of human interaction, if for no other reason. It's better to just be clear about when circumstances fall under GM judgement, preferably with a few examples.

[False God]

The less flexible the game is, the closer I stick to the raw.

In very rules-heavy games, short of something being a wantonly poor rule; the rules are the common ground upon which all meta-communication between players and the DM is founded, therefore it is best to use the rules as written to facilitate good communication.

In more flexible games I often follow the rules very loosely, but IME, these systems generally expect that and are far more lenient with deviations. Their players are likewise more lenient with deviations from what "the book says".

[Skrum]

I play as part of a larger group with several DM's and a rotating cast of characters. So we play quite close to RAW, just because it's the easiest default for continuity across different games. We do use several optional rules though, like flanking, and allow all WotC-published sources (5E btw).

My general inclination is to stick to RAW. Not in the legalistic, rules-exploit sense, but for continuity and expectation-setting reasons. I also personally get a lot more satisfaction making interesting, strong characters that are RAW-legal, but that's personal aesthetics. Conversely though, when rules for something are really really bad (like mounted combat), I'm not opposed to fixing them.

[kyoryu]

The less flexible the game is, the closer I stick to the raw.

In very rules-heavy games, short of something being a wantonly poor rule; the rules are the common ground upon which all meta-communication between players and the DM is founded, therefore it is best to use the rules as written to facilitate good communication.

In more flexible games I often follow the rules very loosely, but IME, these systems generally expect that and are far more lenient with deviations. Their players are likewise more lenient with deviations from what "the book says".

Interesting that I'm the opposite.

Like, Fate is very rules light, but I follow the rules that exist very closely. And I may do tweaking (the system is friendly to that) but typically that's done more as houserules than anything.

But... the game has large swaths where it's already subject to GM/table judgement, so I find that easy to do.

On the other hand, heavier games typically give less room for judgement, so I run into many more "that makes no sense" issues requiring house-rules or on-the-fly adjustments.

[farothel]

We mostly stay close to the RAW in our tabletop group. There are sometimes a few houserules (like in Alien there is a critical hit table where the GM has said he would ignore the instant dead lines as it kinda sucks to be killed by a random roll of the dice) discussed up front, but these are uncommon and mostly limited to these kinds of rules.

Of course it can be that during play we have a need for an instant ruling and if later we find out that we did it wrong, there are several options:
-if it's a one time thing (like a bonus we forgot to add or that we added and shouldn't) we'll let it stand as is of course, but from now on we'll use the rule correctly.
-if it's something longer term (like a magic weapon rule we've been using wrong for quite some time) we often let it stand for that campaign, but if we come back to that system, we do it differently the next campaign. Of course, this will then also count for players who get this item/bonus/whatever later and the NPCs can also use it that way.

[Tanarii]

I generally try to stick to the way I think the rules work. If I make changes they're as targeted as possible to accomplish a major campaign necessity.

E.g. in my past 5e campaign, Long Rests required retreating to a safe place like a town, and taking a long rest ended a session, and with some pre-scheduled exceptions ending a session without a long rest meant those characters were lost until another party found and saved them.

I do distinguish heavily between content and rules though. I do not count "here's the allowed/disallowed races, classes, feats, spells, eat " as house rules. They're character creation limitations. If someone asked me if a 5e standard human champion fighters only one shot I was running 'followed RAW' I'd answer yes.

Some systems do require less following the rules due to sheer mass of rules making the game unplayable (GURPS, Shadowrun) or sheer mess of rules making even figuring out exactly how they don't work properly a futile endeavor (Palladium/RIFTs).

[Willie the Duck]

I have always preferred play where, after the players are familiar with the setting and system, 90% of play works regardless of the rules, as we just say what the characters do, and the GM says what happens without resolution mechanics required. For that 10% of play that needs mechanical arbitration, we tend not to stray far from the printed ruleset... excepting that we include a heft dose of 'you know what they mean, don't try to twist the words to some bizarre end.' Some people call that RAI, but we just call it 'be reasonable.' 3e D&D's drown healing, 5e's stealth and lighting rules, those kind of things are where we say 'if a strict following of the book rules leads to a nonsensical result, we instead go with a reasonable one.'

[RedMage125]

I have always preferred play where, after the players are familiar with the setting and system, 90% of play works regardless of the rules, as we just say what the characters do, and the GM says what happens without resolution mechanics required. For that 10% of play that needs mechanical arbitration, we tend not to stray far from the printed ruleset... excepting that we include a heft dose of 'you know what they mean, don't try to twist the words to some bizarre end.' Some people call that RAI, but we just call it 'be reasonable.' 3e D&D's drown healing, 5e's stealth and lighting rules, those kind of things are where we say 'if a strict following of the book rules leads to a nonsensical result, we instead go with a reasonable one.'

This is pretty much what I meant, too. Namely, because if a player want to look up how something works in the RAW, that play should have an expectation that such is how I am going to allow it to work. My house rules are always mentioned up front, usually on a printed piece of paper that I had out and make sure everyone reads. Some are super player-friendly.

For example: I do max HP at 2nd level as well as 1st. After that, they roll their Hit Die, but they can take the Fixed Value if they don't roll above it. HP are a metagame concept, a tracker for how long you can "stay in the fight". I don't want players feeling like their character didn't make significant improvement when they level. For 3e, I adopted 4e's "heal from Zero" rule. Which was a person at negative HP who receives magical healing has their HP set to zero and then healing applied. So if someone's at -7, but all they have is one CLW spell, and healer rolls a 1, for a max of 6 hp. Rather than leave one player still in the negative and unable to act, and leave the healer feeling like they made no difference, the downed character is now at 6 hp. Everyone can act, everyone feels like their contribution is meaningful.

Some house rules are things I do to help immersion. And they stem from lessons I learned early on as a DM before I made these rules. Searching for traps: Player wants to look for traps, I roll the die behind the screen, and they give me their modifier. I will only tell them "you found a trap/no traps". Too many players behaved different when they found no traps when they rolled for themselves and got an 18 on the die, vis when they got a 4.
Similar to that is Insight/Sense Motive. When a player asks to make that check, I let them. And no matter what, I roll a Deception check behind the screen. Here's the House Rule: Any NPC who is telling the truth gets a +30 circumstance bonus to their Deception check. If the NPC's check is higher, I inevitably tell the Players "you trust him/her implicitly". So the players can't use "he didn't even roll, NPC must not be lying" as some kind of metagame litmus test. And they behave more believably when they "lose" the Insight/Sense Motive contested check, because they get in the habit of understanding that truthful NPCs give that result (which made the roleplay of the eventual betrayal SO MUCH sweeter when there actually was once an NPC who was lying and just had a phenomenal Bluff check).

And I have one set of House Rules that actually messes with mechanics, and entirely due to my personal preference. It's a 3e house rule. I think Read Magic is a stupid spell. It's gone, and its effects are folded into Detect Magic. Furthermore, the ability to detect magic is kind of key for the primary arcane spellcasters. Sorcerers get Detect Magic as a bonus cantrip known, but still must spend a 0 level slot to cast it. Wizards treat it like the spontaneous healing of clerics. A wizard can prepare other cantrips, and then spend one 0 level spell slot to cast Detect Magic instead. I figure wizards studied hard to learn magic, that most basic function should be the easiest to do. It also keeps the warlock's ability to do it at-will unique.

That's actually most of the house rules I use. Like Tanarii, I don't consider "setting limitations" as "house rules". I also don't consider what I call "table rules". I ask that my players not discuss HP totals in combat. I use the "bloodied" condition from 4e to describe enemies, and I encourage them to do the same. But if they slip, all they get is the DM Stern Look of Disapproval +2.

[Stonehead]

Interesting that I'm the opposite.

Like, Fate is very rules light, but I follow the rules that exist very closely. And I may do tweaking (the system is friendly to that) but typically that's done more as houserules than anything.

But... the game has large swaths where it's already subject to GM/table judgement, so I find that easy to do.

On the other hand, heavier games typically give less room for judgement, so I run into many more "that makes no sense" issues requiring house-rules or on-the-fly adjustments.

Yeah. I mean, you can say a lot about Fate, but honestly, it would almost be hard not to play RAW. Like, what rules even are there to break? If the GM makes some rulings on what's covered by an aspect, that's playing RAW, because that's what the book tells you to do.

[NichG]

Yeah. I mean, you can say a lot about Fate, but honestly, it would almost be hard not to play RAW. Like, what rules even are there to break? If the GM makes some rulings on what's covered by an aspect, that's playing RAW, because that's what the book tells you to do.

Granting bonuses to some dice rolls because of an Aspect, even when that Aspect hasn't been tagged?

[kyoryu]

Yeah. I mean, you can say a lot about Fate, but honestly, it would almost be hard not to play RAW. Like, what rules even are there to break? If the GM makes some rulings on what's covered by an aspect, that's playing RAW, because that's what the book tells you to do.


Granting bonuses to some dice rolls because of an Aspect, even when that Aspect hasn't been tagged?

That, allowing CaA to take people out, not giving free invokes, allowing multiple actions, lots of stuff.

I also tend to play PbtA games very RAW, for similar reasons. Both games allow a large amount of GM discretion by design.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That, allowing CaA to take people out, not giving free invokes, allowing multiple actions, lots of stuff.

I also tend to play PbtA games very RAW, for similar reasons. Both games allow a large amount of GM discretion by design.

And it's hard to say you're not playing by RAW when you're using GM discretion when GM discretion is baked into the game overtly in the text.

Honestly, even 5e D&D has a lot of that. DM discretion baked into RAW. Which makes me a little annoyed when people complain about "Master May I" as if it's a pathological case of not following the rules. I am following the rules. There's no homebrew or houseruling going on at all when I'm doing what the game tells me to do--make a decision and follow it.

I've come to the position that the whole "RAW vs houserule vs homebrew vs 3rd party content" thing doesn't make much sense and is mostly there as argument fuel. It's the astronaut meme--it's rulings all the way down. "Rulings over rules" isn't a statement of a new approach, it's a statement about how the game always was. It's being honest that yes, the game assumes a lot of DM discretion. So rulings == working as intended, astronaut meme style. A return to AD&D era, openly embracing the inevitable.


One suited figure says "Wait, it's <X>?
Second suited figure, with a gun in his hand pointing at first one, says "It always has been"

[icefractal]

I've come to the position that the whole "RAW vs houserule vs homebrew vs 3rd party content" thing doesn't make much sense and is mostly there as argument fuel. It's the astronaut meme--it's rulings all the way down. "Rulings over rules" isn't a statement of a new approach, it's a statement about how the game always was. It's being honest that yes, the game assumes a lot of DM discretion. So rulings == working as intended, astronaut meme style. A return to AD&D era, openly embracing the inevitable.
IDK, I'd say quantitative difference can make a qualitative difference here. A game that's mostly according to rules the players know, with a few edge cases being adjudicated on the fly, is going to feel significantly different than a game where the majority of actions are done that way.

This brought something to mind though - the extreme asymmetry of trust in most TTRPGs, especially old-school ones. Like, you have to trust the GM. They have absolute power, they can determine on the fly whether anything you do works or not, and you just have to trust that they're ruling fairly and for the overall benefit of the group. And it's often brought up as a point against more explicit rules - "if you don't trust the GM, you shouldn't be playing with that GM".

But do these games encourage the GM to trust the players? No! There's so much "GM advice" warning against giving the players too much power, too much influence, letting them "get away" with any trick more than once. Some of it pretty much says "the players are tricky weasels, keep them on a tight leash". Plenty of advice about how to nip any player action in the bud using "in game" methods, about how you should give any material they want to use extreme scrutiny, and so forth. Why not - "if you don't trust a player, you shouldn't be playing with that person"?

Note that this is not the same thing as antagonistic GMing. You can be a fan of the players, focus your game around making their PCs look cool, without giving them any trust. Like a parent / young child relationship. So I'm not saying GMs who run this way are malicious. But ... I'm in my thirties, and the GM is not my parent; that's not the kind of relationship I'm looking for.

[PhoenixPhyre]

IDK, I'd say quantitative difference can make a qualitative difference here. A game that's mostly according to rules the players know, with a few edge cases being adjudicated on the fly, is going to feel significantly different than a game where the majority of actions are done that way.


That's the thing. D&D (in particular) has never actually had "things [mostly] going according to the rules the players know with a few edge cases being adjudicated on the fly." The very act of deferring to a printed rule is a DM adjudication, and a voluntary one. Everything is adjudicated by the DM and always has been. And when the very content you experience is entirely determined by the DM[1], all that 3e managed to do was push more of the adjudication to build/prep time rather than play time and hide it under the rug. While still requiring constant adjudication at the table.

One of the hardest tasks in any form of rules-based scenario is deciding what rules apply here (if any). And that's always a human task in a TTRPG. Because there isn't a pre-programmed rules application engine available. And even if there were, that rules application would require human input, and that input would require formatting in a machine-readable form. Which, if the game is going to be open-ended, will require adjudication. As would "do we hit the rules-application button here?".

[1] The power to set the content and create new content is identical to the power to do anything you want.



This brought something to mind though - the extreme asymmetry of trust in most TTRPGs, especially old-school ones. Like, you have to trust the GM. They have absolute power, they can determine on the fly whether anything you do works or not, and you just have to trust that they're ruling fairly and for the overall benefit of the group. And it's often brought up as a point against more explicit rules - "if you don't trust the GM, you shouldn't be playing with that GM".

But do these games encourage the GM to trust the players? No! There's so much "GM advice" warning against giving the players too much power, too much influence, letting them "get away" with any trick more than once. Some of it pretty much says "the players are tricky weasels, keep them on a tight leash". Plenty of advice about how to nip any player action in the bud using "in game" methods, about how you should give any material they want to use extreme scrutiny, and so forth. Why not - "if you don't trust a player, you shouldn't be playing with that person"?

Note that this is not the same thing as antagonistic GMing. You can be a fan of the players, focus your game around making their PCs look cool, without giving them any trust. Like a parent / young child relationship. So I'm not saying GMs who run this way are malicious. But ... I'm in my thirties, and the GM is not my parent; that's not the kind of relationship I'm looking for.

But this, I don't have any issue with. I definitely wouldn't play with players I don't trust, as a DM. Properly done, it's a multi-person orchestration, where the DM gives voice to the world and makes rulings and decisions but their decisions are done with dual-sided trust.

I'll say that 5e, at least in the attitude the developers put out initially, was framed this way. It was designed for tables where everyone trusts one another to at least try to do the right thing for the group and to resolve the inevitable issues OOC as adults. And by doing so, they could relax a lot of the "try to force X to do the right thing via the rules" rules which didn't really work. Because printed words are just black marks on paper until someone gives them life. And neither players nor DMs actually have the power to enforce anything against anyone's will; they only have the power to stop play in order to get someone else to capitulate. And that's horribly destructive.

The real rules are the ones the group decides on, whether in open discussion and consensus or with trustful delegation. Which may or may not be connected to what's printed in any book.

[kyoryu]

And it's hard to say you're not playing by RAW when you're using GM discretion when GM discretion is baked into the game overtly in the text.

Honestly, even 5e D&D has a lot of that. DM discretion baked into RAW. Which makes me a little annoyed when people complain about "Master May I" as if it's a pathological case of not following the rules. I am following the rules. There's no homebrew or houseruling going on at all when I'm doing what the game tells me to do--make a decision and follow it.

I've come to the position that the whole "RAW vs houserule vs homebrew vs 3rd party content" thing doesn't make much sense and is mostly there as argument fuel. It's the astronaut meme--it's rulings all the way down. "Rulings over rules" isn't a statement of a new approach, it's a statement about how the game always was. It's being honest that yes, the game assumes a lot of DM discretion. So rulings == working as intended, astronaut meme style. A return to AD&D era, openly embracing the inevitable.


One suited figure says "Wait, it's <X>?
Second suited figure, with a gun in his hand pointing at first one, says "It always has been"


I mean, yeah, and I'm all in favor of "rulings over rules".

But even with Rule 0 existing, you can point out when you do things that aren't the way that the book describes them. So while techincally "oh, I don't have players roll damage, they just get max damage every time they attack" is "following the rules" by virtue of Rule 0, it's still not what the book says, and probably not what most people expect. That doesn't mean it's wrong. But we can acknowledge that, apart from Rule 0, it's a deviation from the text of normal procedure of play.

If Rule 0 says "you can vary anything", then any reasonable discussion of rules/houseruling/etc. has to implicitly exclude Rule 0 for the sake of that discussion, or it's meaningless.

[Tanarii]

But ... I'm in my thirties, and the GM is not my parent; that's not the kind of relationship I'm looking for.
I've played with more than a few thirty year old gamers that need a parent GM. And plenty of younger and more than a few older ones.

And that's not necessarily related to them trying to get away with stuff.

Nor, interestingly to me, does being "roleplay"* or rules oriented seem to have much bearing on if a player is likely to try to get away with stuff. There are plenty of players of each type that try to put one over the DM.

Regardless, I've learned that trying to use more rules to constrain either the player or the DM from being a naughty child is the wrong use of the rules.

*but not really. Non-rules oriented folks often still like to try and call themselves that though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, yeah, and I'm all in favor of "rulings over rules".

But even with Rule 0 existing, you can point out when you do things that aren't the way that the book describes them. So while techincally "oh, I don't have players roll damage, they just get max damage every time they attack" is "following the rules" by virtue of Rule 0, it's still not what the book says, and probably not what most people expect. That doesn't mean it's wrong. But we can acknowledge that, apart from Rule 0, it's a deviation from the text of normal procedure of play.

If Rule 0 says "you can vary anything", then any reasonable discussion of rules/houseruling/etc. has to implicitly exclude Rule 0 for the sake of that discussion, or it's meaningless.

I'm not really talking about the general Rule 0 case. I'd say "max damage on hitting" is definitely a deviation from defaults that might cause surprise and needs to be discussed. Just like...well...everything. But once that's done, it's not a houserule or anything. It's just...a rule you've all agreed on. Just like everything else.

What I'm talking about is all the cases (such as setting DCs or deciding what creatures come when you cast conjure animals) where discretion is handed to the DM. Any decision you make there is following the rules.


In general, the artificial division of things into RAW and various non-RAW (RAI, RAF, houserules, official content, homebrew, 3rd party, etc) is just that. Artificial. The rules themselves don't give any priority to themselves; in fact, they explicitly state that the DM is the final word. As a result, whatever the DM says is the rules and whether that comes from the book or not matters not a bit in the final analysis. Either I accept it or I stop play until either I or someone else gives in. RAW =/= good; good =/= RAW. And good is all that matters.

"Rules" (in the as-played sense) need to be evaluated on their own merits, not by their source. Devs do stupid things as much or more than DMs do; I trust my DMs and players much more than I do the developers. And the feedback loop when I (or another DM) screws up is much tighter than when the developers do.
Especially since "RAW" as it's understood on the D&D-specific sides of the internet really isn't "just the text." That's the bailey to which people retreat; what they really mean is "the readings and interpretations the forum has decided are canonical", most of which are designed to give maximal power to players and disfavor any DM involvement. There is no meaning without interpretation, and what forums call RAW is not special in any way. It's just one interpretation among many.

[icefractal]

The real rules are the ones the group decides on, whether in open discussion and consensus or with trustful delegation. Which may or may not be connected to what's printed in any book.Well I agree on this. And it's true, an adjudication-heavy system can be collaborative as well as it can be single-authority. It's really "viking hat DM" advice that grinds my gears.


What I'm talking about is all the cases (such as setting DCs or deciding what creatures come when you cast conjure animals) where discretion is handed to the DM. Any decision you make there is following the rules.Personally, it's not where the DC came from that matters - it's how far in advance I know it.

Like, let's say I have a Monk 5, with Strength 14. So I have Athletics +5.
Am I good at climbing walls?

If a typical wall is DC 5, then I'm very good at it, and only even need to roll if it's a particularly smooth wall or external conditions are making it difficult.
If a typical wall is DC 10, I'm good at it, but do fail sometimes. Now it depends whether a failure means "slowed down" or "fall off the wall" - in the former case I can still plan on being able to climb a castle wall, in the latter case it's a rather risky idea.
If a typical wall is DC 15, I'm ok but not great at it. I can succeed much of the time, but it's not something to rely on. "And then I'll climb to safety" should not be part of a plan.
If a typical wall is DC 20, I'm not good at it, and should seek other methods to getting past a wall.

If I know this information from the very start, there's no problem. I can know if my skills are appropriate to the character concept, and adjust if not. The map is aligned with the territory.
If I at least know it at the planning stage, I can make reasonable decisions. It still might cause weirdness with the concept - "How did you train in a mountain monastery that required scaling cliffs if you can't even climb this tree?" But at least the decisions in play will make sense.
If I don't know it until I actually start climbing, then I have no idea whether my choices make any sense in-fiction. Maybe fine if I'm playing a really seat-of-the-pants type, not good otherwise.

So basically, I consider knowledge of typical DCs (typical, a given wall could be secretly coated in oil or whatever) part of what's needed to act reasonably in the fiction. Thus my aversion to not having a default DC.


Especially since "RAW" as it's understood on the D&D-specific sides of the internet really isn't "just the text." That's the bailey to which people retreat; what they really mean is "the readings and interpretations the forum has decided are canonical", most of which are designed to give maximal power to players and disfavor any DM involvement. There is no meaning without interpretation, and what forums call RAW is not special in any way. It's just one interpretation among many.RAW is arbitrary, but it (or another arbitrary standard) is needed in order to discuss things on a deeper level than "depends on your GM", between people who aren't part of the same group.

Like, because Conjure Animals is intentionally unspecified, there's not much to discuss about it on a forum (from a player-facing view, anyway). Is it a good spell? Well, it can be anywhere from an excellent spell to a waste of a slot, depending on how the GM runs it. Can you do a given thing with it? Maybe, maybe not. Not much to dive into, there.

[Jay R]

It's always a judgment call. Here are a few of my "Rules for DMs" that are relevant to this topic:


10. A role-playing game is run by rules. But it isn't made out of rules; it's made out of ideas, characters, and imagination.

11. The more completely you know the rules, the better you can be at ignoring them when necessary.

a. "When necessary" means it should be rare, forced by an unusual situation, and non-intrusive. [And some people believe it should not happen even then.]
b. Applying the rules is like eating food. That should always happen. Ignoring the rules is like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong.
c. Never change a rule unless you know why it was written.

12. There must be enough rules consistency, and world consistency, that the players know what they can count on.

a. They should also know what they cannot count on. It’s OK for your goblins to be different from the goblins in the rules. It’s OK for them to not know what goblins are like. But it’s not OK for them to believe that your goblins will be rules-goblins if they aren't.

13. When you change rules, you don’t necessarily have to tell the players if it is something that their characters wouldn’t know. But you should tell them not to assume all D&D rules apply.

a. If you changed dragons because most people in that world don’t know details about dragons, you don’t have to tell them those details. But you should tell them that dragons aren’t color-coded for the benefit of the PCs.
b. Not knowing about the monster is a challenging adventure of discovery. Knowing things that are false is just a failure mode. No resemblance.

45. No matter what the game rules say, no matter what these rules say, don’t do nothin’ stupid.

---

Note: These are my guidelines for the way I run a game. I am not saying that anybody else “should” run a game this way. These rules exist to help me be consistent, and so my players can know what to expect.

Anybody else is free to use them as guidelines, to modify them, to use some but not others, or to ignore them altogether, as seems best to you.

[kyoryu]

In general, the artificial division of things into RAW and various non-RAW (RAI, RAF, houserules, official content, homebrew, 3rd party, etc) is just that. Artificial.

Except not really. When we talk about "D&D" or any other RPG, the only common point we have is the written materials. Understanding what is actually the "official" written material and what ain't is useful.


The rules themselves don't give any priority to themselves; in fact, they explicitly state that the DM is the final word. As a result, whatever the DM says is the rules and whether that comes from the book or not matters not a bit in the final analysis.

Sure, but, again, it's useful to know where you're deviating from what is written, and therefore what expectations people have.

"Hey, I'm here to play D&D!" "Cool, where's your tarot deck and the speaking stones?" "Uhhhhh what?"

Rules vs. Rulings is more (to me) about the idea that each situation is unique, and should be adjudicated as appropriate, and that any general rules are going to be somewhere between insufficient and nonsensical in some circumstances. We can still acknowledge when we're overriding the general rules as presented.

You can also think about layers of rules - core rules, and more and more specifics and subsystems get layered on them.


RAW =/= good; good =/= RAW. And good is all that matters.

In terms of making a good game, yes. I do think it's worth understanding why RAW is what it is (oftentimes I've found people misunderstand how to use the rules as written when they houserule). But yes, a good game is what matters. Running RAW is not important. Anybody going "that's not RAW! You can't do that!" would be kicked out of my game.

But it's also frustrating talking about a game online only to find somebody is using some hodge-podge of house rules and other things, and ignoring half of the game. Okay, cool, but you're doing something totally different at that point and your advice may not be generically useful.


"Rules" (in the as-played sense) need to be evaluated on their own merits, not by their source. Devs do stupid things as much or more than DMs do; I trust my DMs and players much more than I do the developers. And the feedback loop when I (or another DM) screws up is much tighter than when the developers do.

Ehhhhhhhhhh maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the game, its history, etc. I often do think that people try to push new games onto their existing models of old games (hell, I've done it) so many times "this is bad" is more a factor of "this doesn't work like what I'm used to" than it being actually bad.

And sometimes rules are bad.

And sometimes you need more room for rulings and overriding stuff on the fly.

And sometimes you get a rule, and understand it, and understand when and where and why it works, and realize that for what you're doing it needs to be changed in some fashion.


Especially since "RAW" as it's understood on the D&D-specific sides of the internet really isn't "just the text." That's the bailey to which people retreat; what they really mean is "the readings and interpretations the forum has decided are canonical", most of which are designed to give maximal power to players and disfavor any DM involvement.

For sure. A lot of discussion of RAW involving D&D, in particular, tends towards the toxic. And a lot of people assume objectivity when there is in fact interpretation.


There is no meaning without interpretation, and what forums call RAW is not special in any way. It's just one interpretation among many.


In some cases. Some things are pretty cut and dried. To hit someone in D&D, you roll a d20, add bonuses, and try to beat the effective AC. That's not a lot to interpret, though there may be some sub-sections of that that have some interpretation. AC makes you harder to hit. Having AC give damage resistance instead is absolutely a house rule and isn't RAW.

Again, to me RAW isn't a "standard" and certainly not an "ideal". It's a baseline and a common ground to start discussions with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

E
Again, to me RAW isn't a "standard" and certainly not an "ideal". It's a baseline and a common ground to start discussions with.

I don't have a particular problem with seeing the printed text[1] as a set of defaults and a starting point (one of many) for tables to come up with their own real rules. It doesn't serve its purpose of actually solving rules debates online, except in cases no one was arguing about anyway. Because all the thing that start debates don't have clear text. It's always the parts that require interpretation that cause arguments. Most interesting questions can't be solved by citing chapter and verse.

And I expect to go through a "rules-negotiating" phase when I join a table. Or when I run a new one. If I sat down and they said "we're just going to use the text, no changes", that'd be a yellow flag for me. A sign (not a guarantee, just a correlating factor) that the table likely isn't for me, that they will focus mostly on mechanical combos and running numbers as big as possible. And that people will rules-lawyer and use rules as swords and shields instead of discussing things like rational adults and figuring out a compromise that works, even if it departs from the Holy Writ.

What I do have a problem with is the general attitude that the printed text is the thing of prime importance and binding weight and that departures (even when such are explicitly there as variants) should be disfavored. Except when following the variants would provide more character power, in which case they're mandatory and how dare you play without them! The attitude that "not playing by the printed defaults" is lesser or that inter-table consistency is of vital importance and that the most important thing is that we can talk about it online[2] is what I'm against. And those tend to be part and parcel of such discussions.

No one plays D&D by the printed text 100%. Nor even 90%. They've just blinded themselves to all the places they've tweaked things or made decisions not mandated by the printed text, often of greater importance than anything printed[3]. And my attempt is to push back against the trend which I feel has gone too far to the "RAW is sacred and binding" and "if 1st party, you have to let me use it even if it doesn't fit, because RAW" and "the rules say I can munchkin and you can't oppose me without being a dictator" end of the spectrum. And remind people that they're constantly, even if they don't realize it, making rulings. They're constantly deciding which rules to apply in a given case. And deciding which rules have priority. And when to invoke mechanics. People are the only ones who can have accountability. Trying to shove the responsibility for actions onto the rules (as is way too common) doesn't work.

Additionally, I don't hold any special place for the developers. They're people, and worse, they're people far from my table. Their opinions, even when printed, matter least of anything. The good of the game >> anything written. Period. And I can't judge someone else's game.

[1] I don't use "RAW" here because that's taken on a different connotation.
[2] A game that doesn't lend itself to online discussion isn't better or worse. It's just...different. Being well adapted to discussing online is not a virtue. Nor is it a vice. Personally, mechanistic rules interpretation sets a culture that I dislike. One that focuses on the mechanics, the UI of the game, as the most important thing.
[3] The rules really don't matter much. The decisions made by the ones running the game matter way more. Mechanics are a tool, and there's always multiple ways of getting the same result by different mechanics. Or by no mechanics at all. So using this set of mechanics or that set really doesn't change much in a causal fashion. It's all a matter of taste, really.

[kyoryu]

I get where you're coming from. "How dare you tell me I have to be a Red Wizard of Thay to be a Red Wizard of Thay!"

Heh.

And my point isn't that certain things are important to enable online discussion - rather that if you're going to have online discussion, what the rules actually say is a useful baseline, and relevant deviations should likely be called out. A lot of times houserules create side effects that require more houserules, so at some point you could be talking about a rule or an issue that's in an entirely different context. That doesn't mean the houserules are inherently lesser, just that there's not a real basis of understanding.

I've seen a few cases of people giving out generic advice (mostly for Fate) that worked for their houserules, but wasn't really supported by the game as written. While that can be useful, and I'm sure it worked for them, it's not useful for people actually using the rules. And, again, that's okay, but I've gotten weird pushback ("how dare you tell me that's not the rules!") when that's pointed out. Like, yeah, I'm sure it's fine, but don't go asserting that's how you're supposed to play the game. Point it out as an option that drifts from the rules all you want, that's awesome. But when discussing how things actually work, your houserules can be interesting but don't actually answer the question (and no, I'm not discussing points where there is a lack of clarity in the rules).

[Tanarii]

And I expect to go through a "rules-negotiating" phase when I join a table. Or when I run a new one. If I sat down and they said "we're just going to use the text, no changes", that'd be a yellow flag for me.
Interestingly, I have a yellow flag: tons of "house rules".
And I'm fairly sure that was quickly becoming a fairly common one when I developed it, the late AD&D and early 2e era.
Which is IMO one reason 3e was so wildly popular. It had a universal resolution mechanic and rules built with it in mind, that didn't require house rules just to play the dang game. At least, so it appeared at first ... :smallamused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Interestingly, I have a yellow flag: tons of "house rules".
And I'm fairly sure that was quickly becoming a fairly common one when I developed it, the late AD&D and early 2e era.
Which is IMO one reason 3e was so wildly popular. It had a universal resolution mechanic and rules built with it in mind, that didn't require house rules just to play the dang game. At least, so it appeared at first ... :smallamused:

It pretended to not need them.

Personally, my yellow flags around those go

* We're pure RAW --> predicts lots of rules-lawyering and abuse of the spirit of the rules. Not a 100% prediction, but a warning.
* Here's my 30-page houserule document overhauling all the core resolution mechanics (the stuff you actually use day-to-day, not the content). We use 2d10 instead of 1d20, don't use ability scores, ... --> predicts lots of fumbling around as people try to adjust. And lots of retconning actions that actually didn't make sense. Note that changing content (such as spells, classes, races, etc) doesn't provoke this for me, even if they're extensive.
* I want consensus, so any disagreement stops play until we all decide on the right way to adjudicate stuff --> predicts a super slow table and lots of arguments over rules. Just hear the basic case, make a decision and run with it; defer any extended discussion until after the session.
* Not having a feedback loop on long-running rules. --> I don't need all the "houserules" in advance--that's not possible. But if you're going to change something after it's been in play, have the courtesy to talk to the players (out of the session) and explain what and why. That can take the form of "ok, I'll let you get away with <X> this one time, but not again" when making a ruling.

Things I expect to change from table to table (and look askance if none of it is modified, unless we're playing a module straight out of the book and/or a very new DM):
* character building guidelines (including races, classes, general optimization, variant rules, etc)
* DCs. If every tree has the same DC...
* Rulings on certain specific things (illusions, stealth and perception, etc)

[NichG]

I'm not really interested in playing unmodded games, personally. I wouldn't call it a flag, but just - if the DM says they're not going to ever add or modify mechanics or have things which work according to principles that I wouldn't be familiar with having read the rules and settings books, there's just not much for me to look forward to discovering or inventing, and those things are big motivators for me. If I can anticipate what the end-game version of my character looks like and can do at the start of the game, that's pretty demotivating for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not really interested in playing unmodded games, personally. I wouldn't call it a flag, but just - if the DM says they're not going to ever add or modify mechanics or have things which work according to principles that I wouldn't be familiar with having read the rules and settings books, there's just not much for me to look forward to discovering or inventing, and those things are big motivators for me. If I can anticipate what the end-game version of my character looks like and can do at the start of the game, that's pretty demotivating for me.

Agreed. I'm not much for "builds". I want to start a character as a seed and see what grows. Both mechanically and personality-wise. Exploration of the unknown is a major Aesthetic of Fun for me.

[Stonehead]

Interestingly, I have a yellow flag: tons of "house rules".
And I'm fairly sure that was quickly becoming a fairly common one when I developed it, the late AD&D and early 2e era.
Which is IMO one reason 3e was so wildly popular. It had a universal resolution mechanic and rules built with it in mind, that didn't require house rules just to play the dang game. At least, so it appeared at first ... :smallamused:

I have to chime in in agreement to this. Like, I get the argument that the game designers are just other people, but they're also professional game designers. They don't know your table as well as you do, but we probably don't know rpg design as a whole as well as they do. Usually at least. There is definitely still some garbage that sees print.

It's probably just because I've played in tables with a lot of garbage homebrew that didn't ruin the game for me, but sure did make it a lot less fun. It's Chesterton's Fence (https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/). You shouldn't change a rule until you understand why it was there in the first place.


I'm not really interested in playing unmodded games, personally. I wouldn't call it a flag, but just - if the DM says they're not going to ever add or modify mechanics or have things which work according to principles that I wouldn't be familiar with having read the rules and settings books, there's just not much for me to look forward to discovering or inventing, and those things are big motivators for me. If I can anticipate what the end-game version of my character looks like and can do at the start of the game, that's pretty demotivating for me.

That's interesting. To me at least, the discovery comes out through the story, the world building, and the character development. Like, the discovery aspect comes in when you figure out who the killer was, or learn about some ancient civilization, or suffer a tragic loss. It's cool to "build" your character in response to things that happen in-universe, but I think that's kind of tangential from home brewing. It's pretty easy to multiclass into cleric, or pick up some obscure feats, or even just change your character's personality based on what's happened in the game, without needing to make up new rules.

[Vahnavoi]

Like, I get the argument that the game designers are just other people, but they're also professional game designers.

Tabletop industry has been and continues to be amateurish, to the point that outside few big-name products, and even inside those big-name products if you go back a few decades, the core of the game was cobbled together by a single impassioned individual, with no formal or professional training in games. The kind of professionalism that gets games out lies on the side of enterpreneurship, graphic design, project management, etc. - and a lot of people who became professionals learned those things on the job after they had a game they wanted to publish, with their actual profession having been, and often continuing to be, something else.

This isn't a rebuttal to the idea that you ought to know the rules before you break them - that I fully agree with. The thing I want people to realize is that the only thing "being professional" consistently means is that you get money for what you do. Everything else is up for question.

[NichG]

That's interesting. To me at least, the discovery comes out through the story, the world building, and the character development. Like, the discovery aspect comes in when you figure out who the killer was, or learn about some ancient civilization, or suffer a tragic loss. It's cool to "build" your character in response to things that happen in-universe, but I think that's kind of tangential from home brewing. It's pretty easy to multiclass into cleric, or pick up some obscure feats, or even just change your character's personality based on what's happened in the game, without needing to make up new rules.

That stuff is not at all what I mean by discovery though, that's just traditional storytelling and drama. Which I actually find somewhat uninteresting as a rule, at least the drama elements like suffering tragic losses or just having changes to a character's personality. That's not really what I play tabletop for.

I mean things like playing a scientist in the 18th century and discovering that magic is a thing, and doing experiments and explorations to uncover how magic really works - and then using that to do things that I could not have known were possible. Or playing a planar explorer looking for demiplanes whose properties allow one to upset the constants of the multiverse in some fundamental way. Or playing a cultivator who invents an alternate path of cultivation through trial and error and insight. Or even just someone who looks at stuff around them a little more deeply and turns that into unexpected benefits - studying the corpse of a monster not just to act out being curious, but because in doing so they actually figure out something that they can later use.

Figuring out how to unlock or uncover possibilities that then grow my ability to interface with the world is the highlight for me. That means I can't know it's there beforehand, and that it's not just about lore, unless using that lore is actually a significant source of agency (like uncovering a secret which lets you control the actions of much more powerful beings by revealing it).

It's to the extent that I was actually rather put off by the fact that there were no permanent effects you could have happen to a character in Neverwinter Nights (presumably as an anti cheating design since you could bring your characters into multiplayer). That meant that no matter what I did in game, by the end of the module it would be expressed solely as changes in level and inventory contents, and once I understood that then things became a lot less interesting to me. No encounters with fae who would permanently alter your fate or form, no discovery of unlisted spells, no trading for martial secrets that would give you new moves or let your attacks work differently, etc.

The stuff that breaks the established rules and hints that the true rules are different is always the most salient and interesting to me.

[Satinavian]

Again, to me RAW isn't a "standard" and certainly not an "ideal". It's a baseline and a common ground to start discussions with.
For me they are just the default setting, houserules are customisation for the table and further rulings are just solving specific things that are outside of the rules.

Now, the closer everyone stays to the default setting, the easier is table switching and players exchange. That is why systems that decent and workable when played RAW are a very good thing. Sure, you can always fix stuff but your fix might not be the same the next table uses. The same is true for RAW being clear. If the rules are ambigious, every table might interpret them differently.


But specifically for D&D I have seen people value RAW for yet another reason. And that is because in D&D for some reason the assumption is that the DM alone makes the house-rules in the same way he is responsible for the setting. Which means RAW-not raw always gets dragged into all the DM/player power struggles and everytime players don't trust a specific DM to write good rules or rules they like the argument gets made to always stick to RAW.
Of course that is stupid. People are generally far more relaxed about RAW in groups where rules are decided collectively.

[elros]

I have never been part of a RPG as either a player or DM that was 100% RAW. What I cared about was knowing ahead of time the rules, and avoiding rulings that people did not expect.
When I started DMing in 1st edition one my friends suggested a seventh rolled statistic called “perception,” and we thought it was a great idea so we went with it. We modified it to 2d6+6 so no one was helpless.
That is what I consider a great house rule; something everyone agrees with make the game sessions better.

[DivineOnTheMind]

I think it's important to play by codified rules, especially in rules-heavy games like d20, GURPS or Unisystem, but I'll often change the published rules when they work poorly or unintuitively. I think it's important to have those changes in an available list.

If we're encountering wonky rules on the fly, if it's not a big deal, I'll usually run with something advantageous to players for a session with a warning that it won't last. If it is a big deal or it disadvantages players, that's when I'll step in and say "I think it pretty clearly should work like ___"

[Mordante]

edit to hide a **** up.