The quoting of RAW as a trend

Kzach · Jul 13, 2008

It seems to me that quoting RAW is a new trend amongst newer players. Sure, the term "rules lawyer" didn't just spring up recently, but it just seems like the ratio is skewed towards newer players being more likely to use RAW to justify some sort of obviously unintentional loop hole in the system.

There seems to me to be less inclination to tinker or create or interpret RAW in order to come to a reasonable, sensible, satisfactory and balanced conclusion. This, to me, has been part and parcel of RPG's ever since I started playing them.

I know there is a lot of discussion here about interpreting RAW, there is also a lot of tinkering, etc. however I'm talking about ratio's rather than this board in particular, which encourages people of a creative bent to post moreso than it does those who care less.

Am I seeing things that aren't there? Is this just the grognard in me wanting to lash out at everyone stomping on my lawn? Or are newer players less inclined to question the rules and more inclined to abuse them?

Ruin Explorer · Jul 13, 2008

I dunno about other boards, but most of the people I see obsessively saying "But the RAW doesn't say that!" or otherwise disparaging people for not using the RAW are actually fairly experienced, or older. I suspect some are serious "messageboard DMs", in that they don't actually play, though, and I think this informs the obsessions with "RAW" as opposed to "Rules that work well".

So I don't think it's a new player thing here. On the Wizards boards it may be different.

Also note that 3.5E seemed to really encourage rules-lawyering, despite Rule 0, and certainly literally encouraged stuff which we would have called (un-PC-ly) "rules rape" in the olden days, i.e. using RAW, without loopholes/cheating, but in an obviously disgusting way, to achieve something sickening (i.e. virtually everything on the optimization board). So I think there's a degree of hang-over from that.

There's also this whole "don't try to fix it unless you're sure it's broke!" deal about 4E, which again, typically has experienced players screaming at people for daring to house-rule things, no matter how obviously broken.

Ranes · Jul 13, 2008

The term 'RAW' is predominantly used by people who read a rule, interpret it and think that theirs is the one true interpretation, when the reality is very often not the case.

Doug McCrae · Jul 13, 2008

The 1e rules sucked so you pretty much had to houserule. 3e not only had rules that were mostly good, they were much more complete than previous editions so there was a lot less need to write your own. I think this is what created the culture of stronger adherence to RAW amongst newer players.

Fifth Element · Jul 13, 2008

Doug McCrae said:
The 1e rules sucked so you pretty much had to houserule. 3e not only had rules that were mostly good, they were much more complete than previous editions so there was a lot less need to write your own. I think this is what created the culture of stronger adherence to RAW amongst newer players.

Yes, but as Ranes points out, "RAW" as it is generally used doesn't actually mean Rules as Written, it means Rules as I Interpret Them. While 3.X certainly spelled out much more in its rules than previous editions, the idea that there are rules on the page and no interpretation is needed is far-fetched in most cases.

Leatherhead · Jul 13, 2008

Well the problem with interpreting things is there can be as many different interpretations as there are people. This leads to unfun, as people tend to argue endlessly over what things mean instead of actually playing the game.

Vegepygmy · Jul 13, 2008

Fifth Element said:
...the idea that there are rules on the page and no interpretation is needed is far-fetched in most cases.

I think you're erecting a straw man there. Not even the most hard-headed rules lawyer will claim "no interpretation is needed," IME. All communication requires interpretation.

I think Doug McCrae has it right. The 3e rules were the first to be very good and nearly complete, thus making "strictly RAW" play seem possible.

Fifth Element · Jul 13, 2008

Leatherhead said:
Well the problem with interpreting things is there can be as many different interpretations as there are people. This leads to unfun, as people tend to argue endlessly over what things mean instead of actually playing the game.

Indeed. I think you'll find most instances of RAW being cited occur on the internet. It's like the whole bag o' rats thing. Very few players would be so ridiculous as to actually try it in play, but that doesn't prevent ridiculous arguments from arising on the internet about it. That's what the internet does best, after all.

Fifth Element · Jul 13, 2008

Vegepygmy said:
I think you're erecting a straw man there. Not even the most hard-headed rules lawyer will claim "no interpretation is needed," IME. All communication requires interpretation.

But then RAW doesn't exist. If it requires interpretation, then calling something RAW is meaningless, because it implies that only the literal words used in the rules matter.

Arguments about RAW regularly involve someone presenting their interpretation of some rule which produces a silly result, someone else saying that's not how they would rule on it because that's a silly result, and the OP responding "I'm not interested in your interpretation, just in what the rules actually say."

stonegod · Jul 13, 2008

Are we speaking in RL game or PbP games? In the latter, especially w/ the SRD, its a lot easier to just cut and paste (or link) when needed (when a DM perchance messes something up or similarly for a player). I see that as just gentle reminding most of the time. In RL, something similar can occur. Just depends on how much a jerk folks are being about it.