The quoting of RAW as a trend

[Fifth Element]

Um...no. The rules as written exist; they are there on the page, and they are the words that they are.

That's just semantics. Of course there are words written on the page. But the words are not important, it's the meaning of the words that matters. And don't confuse rules as written with Rules as Written. When someone invokes "RAW" they don't mean "there are rules written on the page, and here is my interpretation of them", they mean "this is what the written rules mean, period."

Discerning what those words mean requires interpretation...but that doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid.

Clearly. But the fact that interpretation is required means that they are not RAW, as the term RAW is commonly used.

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.

Indeed. But again, we're using different definitions of RAW. I mean RAW in the sense that there is no ambiguity about the rule in question, or at least the claim that there is no ambiguity. When RAW is invoked, it is typically to refute someone's reasonable interpretation of a certain rule, and to insert someone else's interpretation instead.

 

[Bump2daWiza]

I don't know about you but I read the PHB, DMG, and MM (or the triple canon as I like to call it) as the word of the designers. They are to be interpreted literally, with no room for subjective opinion. Amen.

 

[Jhaelen]

It's a trend I first noticed in 3E. I guess, in 4E it's simply an attempt to continue the trend by those who've grown used to it. I doubt someone who started playing D&D with 4E would ever get the idea to argue like that.

Imho, it's about time it went out of fashion. It's been a bad idea in 3E and in 4E it has no place at all.

 

[wayne62682]

I'm afraid I'm not seeing what the big issue is. Quoting RAW is a good thing in my eyes, because they're the rules. Sure, you have the occassional jerk who tries to weasel some nonsense in through exact wording, but I think this only really happens on internet discussions, and not in real life. The only times I see RAW invoked as others have mentioned is to demonstrate how to exploit a loophole, shoot down some idiot's lamebrained idea by showing it's not possible, or rarely as a veiled trolling attempt to show that <x> Edition sucks because of some obscure rule.

But then again, I'm very much against house rules. I hate them for the sole reason that the vast majority of time someone I've gamed with has a list of house rules, it's a bunch of useless garbage that exists because the person writing them either A) Is some old school grognard who is mad that WotC changed <insert silly rule from O/1st/2nd edition D&D> and thinks that the lack of it dumbs down the game, B) Dislikes most everything WotC does because it makes no sense/dumbs down the game/makes it more videogame-y/other whining reason, or C) Wants to add more "realism" to the game because they dislike the idea that with a high enough skill you can never, ever fail some checks, or because players know what their hit points are and using a hit point scale with vague terms fixes that.

In other words, most house rules are useless crap cooked up by someone who sees a perceived fault where none exists and probably suffers from what we call in programming NIH: Not Invented Here (self-explanatory; the idea that anything beyond the bare minimum needs to be customized for your own use, instead of using what already exists and tweaking it).

 

[Vegepygmy]

And don't confuse rules as written with Rules as Written. When someone invokes "RAW" they don't mean "there are rules written on the page, and here is my interpretation of them", they mean "this is what the written rules mean, period."

...But the fact that interpretation is required means that they are not RAW, as the term RAW is commonly used.

...But again, we're using different definitions of RAW.

I see now where we disagree. I do not use "RAW" to mean anything different from "rules as written," nor do I think most other people do, either.

Aside from that, we probably don't disagree with each other much. Carry on!

 

[pneumatik]

It's a trend I first noticed in 3E. I guess, in 4E it's simply an attempt to continue the trend by those who've grown used to it. I doubt someone who started playing D&D with 4E would ever get the idea to argue like that.

Imho, it's about time it went out of fashion. It's been a bad idea in 3E and in 4E it has no place at all.

I think at least part of the reason WotC is so concerned with writing rules that are tight enough to people to have RAW arguments at all is because they're paying more attention to RPGA games. As someone who played a lot of Living Greyhawk, I couldn't stand having a DM's personal rules change come up in the middle of an adventure. I have an expectation when I sit down at a table to play DnD with people I don't know very well that they'll follow the rules as they're written in the books.

I don't care if you think a particular rule makes wizards too powerful, or doesn't feel realistic to you. I built my character assuming I'd be playing by RAW, and my actions during combat were also assuming we'd be following RAW. I know several other people with the same attitude. So if people will be playing this way, the rules need to be clear enough for there to be a clear interpretation. WotC may not have been 100% successful at that, but I think that's part of why they're trying.

As a note, neither I nor the other people I know who feel the same of me ever tried to build characters that exploited poorly-written rules. In fact, it's because we didn't try to build broken characters that we cared about following the rules. We needed the rules to work the way they were written to keep our PCs from dying.

 

[Korgoth]

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.

The exact opposite of this.

1e was a strong enough set of rules that you could change anything you wanted and still have a game that rocked.

3e was such a weak set of rules that if you changed anything you were likely the so exacerbate the glaring existing flaws of the game that your campaign would implode and everybody would just go play World of Warcraft instead.

 

[Greg K]

I
I don't care if you think a particular rule makes wizards too powerful, or doesn't feel realistic to you. I built my character assuming I'd be playing by RAW, and my actions during combat were also assuming we'd be following RAW. I know several other people with the same attitude. So if people will be playing this way, the rules need to be clear enough for there to be a clear interpretation. WotC may not have been 100% successful at that, but I think that's part of why they're trying.

Your problem was in assuming. Talking to your DM/GM before making your character to find out how they are deviating from RAW is always a good idea.

 

[inati]

Kzach,

This post wouldn't be in reference to the discussion you had in this thread would it?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I just defer to Hypersmurf. Easier that way.