The quoting of RAW as a trend

[Leatherhead]

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."

Right, so the person suggesting the alternative is essentially saying "here is my houserule" which may or may not be relevant to the discussion at hand. Houserules themselves are infamous things, more than a few people can remember the seemingly inane rulings of capricious DM's that resulted in unfun. This could cause them to adamantly oppose housrules on principle, using RAW to avoid them whenever possible.

 

[Kzach]

A couple of people have hit on what I was trying to say better than I said it.

Basically, before 3.x, I really didn't see many rules lawyers. Most of the groups I was in had custom rules. In fact, a lot of the groups had the SAME custom rules. And this was before the internet was ubiquitous so it was like there was some sort of collective unconscious thing going on.

Point being, everyone house-ruled. Nobody was afraid to reinterpret the rules, even during the game. Which was both a good and a bad thing. But after I stopped playing 3.x and came back to the boards to investigate 4e, it seems there has been this paradigm shift in attitudes.

I had thought it was the old-schoolers who were more open to interpret rulings creatively simply because of my experiences in the past with other editions and other games systems.

But of course I wasn't sure whether it was old-schoolers who were the RAW quoters or the newbies, it just seemed that way to me on first blush. That, and with the apparent rise of the trend as a ratio of gamers, I had thought it only logical that it was the newer guard who had created it.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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.

Um...no. The rules as written exist; they are there on the page, and they are the words that they are. Discerning what those words mean requires interpretation...but that doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid.

Sometimes the RAW is ambiguous. Most of the time it is not. It's just that the few ambiguous parts spawn thousands of ridiculous arguments on message boards like this one.

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."

I disagree. Those arguments aren't about what the RAW says; the second person is simply stating that they think the rule as written produces an absurd result. ("The author couldn't possibly have actually meant what he actually wrote, because that's not how I would have done it if I were him, and my games totally rock!") Sometimes the first person disagrees that the result is absurd (different people like different things in their games); other times, as you note, they just don't care. But the RAW isn't (in such cases) unclear or ambiguous.

Arguments that are truly "about the RAW" erupt when the RAW can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way. Such arguments are actually pretty rare, because most of the game's rules are clear and unambiguous as written.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I had thought it was the old-schoolers who were more open to interpret rulings creatively simply because of my experiences in the past with other editions and other games systems.

I'm part of the old guard, and in my experience, you're correct: we are more open to creative interpretations or simply making ad hoc rulings, probably because of our experience doing so.

But I also remember that in the Bad Old Days, we had to make those rulings because the official rules were a mess. So I appreciate the thoroughness of the 3e ruleset, which makes most such rulings unnecessary, IMO. The end result is that I'm perfectly willing to change the rules, "creatively interpret" them, or whatever...but I rarely have any reason to do so.

 

[malraux]

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.

Not only were 3e rules mostly good, but slight deviations from them could often make problems worse, which encourages more strictly playing by the rules.

 

[AtomicPope]

Not only were 3e rules mostly good, but slight deviations from them could often make problems worse, which encourages more strictly playing by the rules.

Agree.

Since 3e was built on a tight network of closely interrelated rules the structure would quickly unravel if anything was misinterpreted. Attacks of opportunity instantly comes to mind. Back in the day before Dungeoneer's Survival Guide you had to house rule everything. It pretty much came down to a 4e saving throw - on a 10+ you succeed. On a 20 you succeed admirably. On a 1 you're humiliated and we all get to laugh at your failure for years to come.

The RAW arguments on WotC boards in 3e usually stem from the "layering" of closely related rules. As 3e expanded several addendums resulted and not everyone got the memo. Just last week in my weekly 3e game the DM said, "you can't cast two spells in one turn!" Huh? It doesn't say that anywhere. I was casting a spell as a swift action then another as a standard action. Nothing fancy about that. However, a problem did arise when an immediate action spell (that counters other spells) was used to counter the counter-spell of a readied action (confusing I know). In 4e you can't use an immediate action in your turn. The same constraints don't exist in 3e because immediate actions are an after thought, not core.

 

[small pumpkin man]

A couple of people have hit on what I was trying to say better than I said it.

Basically, before 3.x, I really didn't see many rules lawyers. Most of the groups I was in had custom rules. In fact, a lot of the groups had the SAME custom rules. And this was before the internet was ubiquitous so it was like there was some sort of collective unconscious thing going on.

Point being, everyone house-ruled. Nobody was afraid to reinterpret the rules, even during the game. Which was both a good and a bad thing. But after I stopped playing 3.x and came back to the boards to investigate 4e, it seems there has been this paradigm shift in attitudes.

I had thought it was the old-schoolers who were more open to interpret rulings creatively simply because of my experiences in the past with other editions and other games systems.

But of course I wasn't sure whether it was old-schoolers who were the RAW quoters or the newbies, it just seemed that way to me on first blush. That, and with the apparent rise of the trend as a ratio of gamers, I had thought it only logical that it was the newer guard who had created it.

Wait, are you saying you are comparing real world 3.x conversations to internet 4e conversations? Because if so, that would be your problem. Real world conversations come down to "what do we want at our table", in an internet conversation, that's pointless, people want to find out what the rules do/are supposed to mean, and then they go home and decide if they want to change it.

Because I really have to say, the 4e discussions seem to get a lot more quoting of RAI "Rules as Intended", something which was generally more ignored in 3.x. Perhaps because of the larger role the designers seem to be having in the community, there's more of a "what do we think these guys were thinking when they wrote this rule" than the "what is the most literal meaning of the text we can find" which was extremely prevalent in internet 3.x discussions, and while it does still show up, doesn't get completely ignored as much as I remember.

Of course, that could be because my 3.x internet reading was the WotC Forums, esp the CharOp boards, and most of my 4e readings is EN World.

 

[neceros]

Using the term RAW isn't new. We've been doing it for years and years in the CO boards on the official forums.

The reason RAW is mentioned is purely because that is the basis we have to standardize the rules. What else should we go off of in order to make a judgment call besides what is actually written on the page?

If RAI works for you and your group then by all means don't hesitate. However, I like to see things as they are, so long as it's obviously not a typo or bad ruling from WoTC.

 

[Fifth Element]

Right, so the person suggesting the alternative is essentially saying "here is my houserule" which may or may not be relevant to the discussion at hand.

No, not at all. Typically the person claiming they are just following RAW are actually following their interpretation of the RAW, while the other person has a different interpretation. My point is that rules require interpretation, and in general claiming that RAW has meaning without interpretation is wrong.

 

[Glyfair]

Wait, are you saying you are comparing real world 3.x conversations to internet 4e conversations? Because if so, that would be your problem. Real world conversations come down to "what do we want at our table", in an internet conversation, that's pointless, people want to find out what the rules do/are supposed to mean, and then they go home and decide if they want to change it.

I agree. I think internet discussions have changed the dynamic a lot. Yes, the attitude was there before the internet was widespread, but I believe it is more noticeable and pervasive because of internet discussions.

When you discuss rules online there are a few approaches to what you can discuss.

1) Rules as written - As discussed here, you can discussion what the words actually say. Sometimes the words are ambiguous, but often they are very clear. That leads into discussions about whether what is written makes sense, which gets combined with approach #2.

2) Rules as intended - Much more important in my view, this tends to get short shrift on some internet discussions. The main issue is that it's often hard to get into designer's heads as to their meaning, and only a handful tend to discuss such rules online. Even when they do some even disbelieve their comments as covering their butts, which isn't helpful in my opinion.

3) Rules at the table - Using the information from approach #1 and #2 we then can discuss what is the best way to play at the table. This is complex for a lot of reasons.

Each group has different dynamics and what works best at one table won't necessarily work at others. Also, it's nice to have a consistent ruling when you play at different tables. If I have 3 different games I visit in a month, it can get confusing when a rule works differently at each of the 3 games (especially when you add all the various rules that work differently and try to keep track of them).

Also, on some forums this discussion also involves house rules which have a separate forum. When a discussion touches on this issue some feel it belongs in the other forum and try to quash the discussion, In my opinion, it's not reasonable to expect to hold a cohesive discussion on one issue in two separate threads. Still, I understand without the differentiation the rules forums might be 90% discussion about house rules.

Give the side issues with approaches #2 and #3, I think many try to limit their discussions to the RAW. It's a much easier place to get a solid basis work with. Even when it's ambiguous, it's usually much more straightforward that the other approaches.

Given this tendency, I think a lot of people have gotten into the habit of discussing RAW and bringing it to the table, forgetting the other approaches. They then start considering the RAW the only basis for a baseline and consistency.

Personally, when I start running a new game or edition of the game I try to run it by the RAW, RPGs are complex, and often changing a rule has repercussions on other rules and campaign balance that aren't immediately obvious. I only go with a different approach when the rule obviously isn't working with the group. Once we get a feel for how things fit together, that's when we start adding house rules. We are judicious because too many house rules are hard to track, especially when new expansions to the game might interact with the house rule and have to be approached and dealt with.