D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

The rules have been said to be written intentionally vague and given the amount of arguments I've seen over certain rulings and how multiple valid conclusions can be drawn from even the simplest of rules, I'm wondering if there is even any point at all to arguing RAW. It seems intentional that 5e be RAI, and that it's up to groups to determine their own interpretations.

If this was the intention and it ends up staying that way, i.e. WotC doesn't start a Sage Advice column so as to end disputes, I have to say that I think I prefer it this way. It's certainly a paradigm shift away from what I recall as having been the status quo since at least 2e, which I believe started with the Sage Advice column in Dragon magazine. The problem with RAW is that it can lead to unintentional conflicts and absurd combinations that, due to being RAW, are allowed and therefore argued by players as being legitimate choices in the game. RAI, OTOH, creates the expectation that the DM & group agree on what is going to be the interpretations used in their game.

One of the other reasons I believe this will be the new and intended methodology of 5e is that there seems to be a strong trend towards giving the DM more latitude and power to determine the scope of the game instead of putting all the power into the players hands, which is essentially a situation which a strict RAW game creates.

Anyway, that's my take and I thought it would make for an interesting discussion. So what do you think about RAW in 5e?

I have always been of the opinion that no one is better qualified to determined the shape of the rules than the people actually playing. Rulebooks are great for providing basic structure but not as well suited at being an ultimate authority for everyone who plays the game. The spirit of the rules have always been more important than the letter IMHO and flexibility is the best way to ensure that the letter of the rules remains in tune with the spirit and feel a particular group is looking for.

RAW is the baseline for establishing trust in the game at both sides of the table (player or DM). It is probably more important for organized play versus a group of friends. At least friends may be willing to put up with any arguments or inconsistencies. But I have even seen friends not willing to play a game, if the DM is not consistent in their rulings. The chances are even greater for a new group that you will find certain rulings invalidates your expectations on what the rules allow.

So the whole concept of building in vagueness in the rules is bogus from my perspective. For a RPG, or similar game, you establish the level of abstraction that is expected, but make the rules clear using the baseline that is established.

Thank Dog said:

The problem with RAW is that it can lead to unintentional conflicts and absurd combinations that, due to being RAW, are allowed and therefore argued by players as being legitimate choices in the game. RAI, OTOH, creates the expectation that the DM & group agree on what is going to be the interpretations used in their game.

Click to expand...

True, but the problem with RAI is that it can lead to incessant wheedling on the part of the players to get the DM to interpret rules in a manner that are favorable to their characters. I remember playing OD&D and 2E, and when 3E came out I was initially very pleased as a DM with the fact that almost everything players had thought to do previously had rules spelling out exactly how it worked in game. No more arguments (that's how it seemed at first, anyway).

It's worth mentioning that the dawn of 3E was just a titch prior to the spread of internet forums; the only real D&D community online that I remember from that period was the Usenet newsgroup rec.games.frp.dnd. The growth of internet fora played a big part in shaping what the 3E (and 4E) experience would become. When players could go online and browse for "Ultimate XXXploitz", the problems with RAW started to show themselves even more than they would have in the old days.

So here we are back to RAI, with many fresh-faced young DMs no doubt feeling a sense of relief due to freedom from the problems inherent in RAW. But the grass is always greener, as they say.

Me, I'm seeing the shift as a refreshing change, but one that I know carries with it its own inherent issues. The min/maxers will still min/max and cause problems for games they play in, they'll just have to go about doing it in a different way.

And once the splatbooks start getting churned out...

ExploderWizard said:

I have always been of the opinion that no one is better qualified to determined the shape of the rules than the people actually playing. Rulebooks are great for providing basic structure but not as well suited at being an ultimate authority for everyone who plays the game. The spirit of the rules have always been more important than the letter IMHO and flexibility is the best way to ensure that the letter of the rules remains in tune with the spirit and feel a particular group is looking for.

Click to expand...

But all of this tends to go out the window when a character's life (or even more importantly, power level) is on the line, and the third sentence of paragraph four, page 126 clearly states...

Thank Dog said:

The rules have been said to be written intentionally vague and given the amount of arguments I've seen over certain rulings and how multiple valid conclusions can be drawn from even the simplest of rules, I'm wondering if there is even any point at all to arguing RAW. It seems intentional that 5e be RAI, and that it's up to groups to determine their own interpretations.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, glad to be back.

RAW, RIP.

Uchawi said:

RAW is the baseline for establishing trust in the game at both sides of the table (player or DM). It is probably more important for organized play versus a group of friends. At least friends may be willing to put up with any arguments or inconsistencies. But I have even seen friends not willing to play a game, if the DM is not consistent in their rulings. The chances are even greater for a new group that you will find certain rulings invalidates your expectations on what the rules allow.

So the whole concept of building in vagueness in the rules is bogus from my perspective. For a RPG, or similar game, you establish the level of abstraction that is expected, but make the rules clear using the baseline that is established.

Click to expand...

+1

Rules are what forms our shared language and lets us argue/debate things.

Intent is so vague and open it is kinda pointless to have conversations about it, rules as written we can be proven right or wrong.

Also it leads to vast differences in game play at different tables, this can be an issue when joining multiple groups through either organized play or online play.

Mercurius said:

Ahhh, glad to be back.

RAW, RIP.

Click to expand...

Have to agree. Not to be a jerk as DM but, My Campaign, "RAI", Common Sense prevails & consistency. If you can't accept that then it's time for you to move on and find another game.

Yup.

RAI and common sense rule (pun intended) the day. And it's about bloody time the game, AI, got back to it.

Fare thee well RAW, don't let the book-binding hit'cha where the terrasque shoulda bit'cha...and torn ya to shreds never to be raised again.

I have a hard time understanding how 'trust' is ever an issue. I guess if you are playing at tournaments or just popping in to random games here and there it might be, but I've never had this be an issue.

D&D is defined as a game with an arbitrator, a referee who's decisions are final. Everyone I've ever played with has entered the game with that understanding, and even when rulings have been different from what is spelled out in the rule books or than what is expected, no one has had a problem with the simple explanation of 'that's how things work in this world' from the DM.

Sure, we've played around with various things, and even had rulings change over time as the DM or group has become more experienced... "Now before we start tonight's session, I just want to let everyone know, I've been considering my ruling on X from a few weeks ago, and based on how its been working out over the last few sessions, I've changed my mind. From now on it'll work like Y."

Sometimes it's DM fiat, sometimes it comes from a mature discussion about the issue, and sometimes it results from a desire to try something new: "For this campaign, we're going to try for a grittier style, so we're going to be using these modifications to the healing and magic rules..."

Regardless, the point is, D&D has always been a platform on which to build fun experiences and the people I play with have always understood that, so there's never really been any need for argument over 'rules'.

I would posit that if you find yourself in that situation, it might have more to do with the maturity level of the people you play with, than any issues with the rules themselves...