D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

[I'm A Banana]

RAW is the baseline for establishing trust in the game at both sides of the table (player or DM).

No book is going to give you trust in your friends. If you can't trust your players or your DM to be good people who want to have fun with you, it might be smart to re-evaluate your gaming group.

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.

That's kind of petty, don't you think? There should be an expectation of imperfection, and a flexibility and resilience on every participant's part.

Heck, even in Organized Play!

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.

I would have personally liked certain rules to be clearer (STEALTH, For Frig's Sake!), but since an RPG is always mediated through a DM, I'm not too concerned about it. DMs make judgement calls. It's part of the territory.

 

[Dausuul]

It doesn't have anything to do with trust; it has to do with not wasting everyone's time.

If there is an ambiguous rule in the PHB, one of my players may look at it and think it obviously means X, while I look at it and think it obviously means Y. It's quite probable that neither of us will realize the disconnect until the player tries to apply that rule in the game. Then the game stops while the player and I sort things out. That is precious game time being wasted because the rule is unclear. Furthermore, it means now I have to remember what we settled on and apply it consistently.

If the rule is clearly written, and I don't like the way it's written, guess what? I'm the DM. I can change it. I don't need strategic ambiguity to give me permission. But now I know that I'm changing a rule, and that I'm going to need to tell my players about it. No confusion.

The ruleset should be compact, simple, and clean. Its scope should be limited; many things should be left to the DM's judgement (trying to eliminate any need for DM judgement was the great mistake of 3E and 4E). But it should be clear when something is being left to the DM's judgement. Within the limited scope of the rules, there should be as little ambiguity as possible.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

So long as it is RAI and codified by the DM. I love rules interpretations and new ways of doing things but these are house rules, RAI is a little different.

I like to know up front if I make a character with a feat that it will do what it says. Not what the DM thinks it says, (or vice versus on that logic). There is a bit of rug getting pulled out from under you if a DM uses the intent of the designer to make rulings. You wanted to have light thrown weapons be used with power throw feat. You believe because it does not explicitly say that light weapons cannot be used that you should be able to power throw a dagger. The DM believes that Power Throw is like Power Attack and light weapons cannot be used because you have to have power attack to get power throw and this is what the designers intended. Stuff like that will come up and the player has to either say whatever, I can't use the feat with my daggers or ask to change the character's feat or whatever.

This is actually a good example of why I keep telling 3.x/PF/4e people to "stop thinking like a 3.x/PF/4e player". With the advent of 3e, we ended up with a system trying to, basically, have a "rule or category for everything". The (I assume) hope was that with more stuff covered, it would be easier for people to run a game. In stead, what ended up happening is that a whole new generation of RPG'ers were taught "if you can't find a rule in your books, you need to by more books". The idea that the DM would be able to "make it up" was anathema to how they saw the game. We would have players coming onto various forum and ask questions so basic, so simple, so...."common sensey'ish" that it could get to the point of insanity. Questions kinda like the one in your example.

If a rule doesn't say you can't do something, then obviously you can? So, I want to use my characters Rope Use skill to build a suit of full plate armor I can...because "the rule doesn't say I can't"? Does that make any sense at all? Any? This is the heart of the RAW problem; you simply can not have a rule cover 'everything'. Impossible. You will always need the DM to interpret how the rule is to be applied in unusual situations. Always. It's one of the major reason RPG's even have a DM. It is the ONE thing that makes them totally unique from other games like poker, chess, monopoly, etc.; that one person playing (DM) has the power to change rules of the game on the fly.

In the example of Power Throw...it's not the rules fault. I'd say that sits squarely on the players shoulders. Either the player just wasn't thinking along those lines at all, in which case he would likely be genuinely surprised by a DM ruling against it...or he was thinking about it and thought "Ha! I'm so smart! I can totally screw the rules on this one! I found a loop-hole! I'm invincible!!", in which case said player needs a swift kick to the dice for being a d-bag. If he thought about it, paused, and thought "Hmmm. Seems kinda vague in this situation..."....he should have went to his DM for an interpretation.

That is, IMHO, why 5e is written the way it is. It's trying to go back to the way it's alway...er...it was (sorry, we still play 1e AD&D...so it's always been this way for me/us...). Where the players and the DM create their own campaign, with it's own quirks and foibles. I think the "vagueness" of some of the rules is specific to reinforce the role of the DM in the campaign...players will come across something that isn't clearly spelled out, or can be interpreted one of two or three ways. At that point, they have to go to their DM to point it out, and then the DM (usually with player input) make a ruling that makes sense to them. Chances are that the ruling won't be so far out of whack that someone from another game will have no clue what's going on if they join the group (at least, I've never encountered anything so vastly different with regards to 1e AD&D that I was left scratching my head....not that I can remember, anyway...).

Sorry for the longish post, but I needed to get that said. RAI are far superior to RAW. RAW are good as long as they are vague to begin with. You can have useful RAW that are vague...it's finding that fine line between "usefully" vague and "wtf?!?" vague.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[aramis erak]

The RAW are playable - but may require some interpretation. And it's the DM's sole, exclusive, right and proper job to be that interpreter.

 

[Sadrik]

This is actually a good example of why I keep telling 3.x/PF/4e people to "stop thinking like a 3.x/PF/4e player". With the advent of 3e, we ended up with a system trying to, basically, have a "rule or category for everything". The (I assume) hope was that with more stuff covered, it would be easier for people to run a game. In stead, what ended up happening is that a whole new generation of RPG'ers were taught "if you can't find a rule in your books, you need to by more books". The idea that the DM would be able to "make it up" was anathema to how they saw the game. We would have players coming onto various forum and ask questions so basic, so simple, so...."common sensey'ish" that it could get to the point of insanity. Questions kinda like the one in your example.

Hmm, I hear your point here but I think you misinterpreted my point with the interpretation of the feat being in contest. D&D is traditionally a game with many moving parts and many areas of potential conflict. This is a feature of the game in most situations. Every spell does not work in the same way even with similar effects. It is organic, complex and messy. 4e tried to change that and there was a backlash. I play many rpgs and only D&D has the types of rules discussions that can get people heated (I dont know why that is). Passionate about their D&D I guess. Perhaps there are a lot of "experts" in the organic, complex and messy environment who try to sort it all out in their own RAI way.

When you select a feat the player has to be able to read it and determine if it will be useful from the language on the page. Will a dagger thrower gain a benefit from using this feat or not?

POWER THROW
You have learned how to hurl weapons to deadly effect.
Prerequisite: Brutal Throw (CAd) , Power Attack (PH) , STR 13,
Benefit: On your turn, before making any attack rolls, you can choose to subtract a number from all thrown weapon attack rolls and add the same number to all thrown weapon damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attack rolls and the bonus on damage rolls applies until your next turn.
Special: A fighter may select Power Throw as one of his fighter bonus feats.

When the player reads this they think ok I can use a dagger with it. When the DM reads it they think ok its a spin off of Power Attack: no light weapons should also apply to this feat as well. Your point is DM interpretation should be final and move on. I agree. My point though was that this can blindside someone. RAI should be clear.

You have a distinct advantage of playing 1e in this area, even though it is not the clearest rules set you have had the time to work out all your unspoken house rules and are allowed to alter the game even in fundamental ways without anyone batting an eyelash because the interpretations have been done long ago and they are now second nature. With 3e, there were so many moving parts to the game (all the splats) it was nearly impossible to have ruled on every situations or even approached doing so. So the only thing you could do is go by the RAW for your initial interpretation.

I am for 5e having no splats or only a handful of them like 1e. So that RAI can become a very concise things for groups where individual groups can have played it for long enough where they can have an opinion on various aspects of the game.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

Consistency takes work. A lot of work. If you want your rulings to be consistent, you need to write them down and you need to take the time to reference them when questions come up. The whole reason we've gone away from common law systems is because trying to be consistent with a huge pile of previous decisions is in fact not easy.

Is it common sense that a rogue can sneak attack a zombie? And more importantly, is it really the most fun to have an argument about whether it's common sense a rogue can sneak attack a zombie instead of going by RAW? And if you think a zombie is obvious, I'm sure there's something where the rogue player will insist it's common sense that he can sneak attack it and the DM disagrees.

Yes, the DM rules, but as a player, I find the DM stepping in and changing what I understand the rules to be against me to be less then fun. Having understood rules is more fun then depending on the DM's common sense.

 

[Paraxis]

Consistency takes work. A lot of work. If you want your rulings to be consistent, you need to write them down and you need to take the time to reference them when questions come up. The whole reason we've gone away from common law systems is because trying to be consistent with a huge pile of previous decisions is in fact not easy.

Is it common sense that a rogue can sneak attack a zombie? And more importantly, is it really the most fun to have an argument about whether it's common sense a rogue can sneak attack a zombie instead of going by RAW? And if you think a zombie is obvious, I'm sure there's something where the rogue player will insist it's common sense that he can sneak attack it and the DM disagrees.

Yes, the DM rules, but as a player, I find the DM stepping in and changing what I understand the rules to be against me to be less then fun. Having understood rules is more fun then depending on the DM's common sense.

+1

I run and play most of my games online using Roll20, that means playing with a variety of different people coming from a large number of different gaming experiences. Consistency is key, if feat X works one way in one game it should work that way in most/all games. One of the big ones that I find not matter the edition that keeps coming up is "Critical Fails" there are no official crit fail rules for skill checks in any edition of D&D, sometimes in the past it has meant a automatic fail but never meant you make a horses rear out of your character.

 

[Thank Dog]

On the spot calls are really bad. Your options are to delay the whole game while you read through the book and try to figure out what was intended or to make a haphazard call that you can later find out is a huge mistake.

I prefer on the spot calls, even if they go against what I prefer or the rules as I know them. A game I played in recently, for instance, there were a couple of instances where the DM didn't know the rules or didn't do things properly. But neither of them were worth stopping the game for even though one of the incorrect rulings was of significant detriment to my character.

If it's worth bringing up at all, then it's worth bringing up after the game.

I like to know up front if I make a character with a feat that it will do what it says.

To me this has always been something where you consult with the DM. Want to play a dual-wielding hand crossbow rogue and you're not sure if the DM will allow it? Ask.

I would have personally liked certain rules to be clearer (STEALTH, For Frig's Sake!), but since an RPG is always mediated through a DM, I'm not too concerned about it. DMs make judgement calls. It's part of the territory.

That's one of the reasons why I brought up this thread. To me, the stealth rules are quite clear and yet to others, they think it allows things that I'm certain aren't allowed by RAW. I get why others have their interpretations, though, which wasn't a situation I felt occurred (as much) in 3.x or 4e.

Then the game stops while the player and I sort things out. That is precious game time being wasted because the rule is unclear.

Again, after the game is where these things get sorted out.

This is actually a good example of why I keep telling 3.x/PF/4e people to "stop thinking like a 3.x/PF/4e player".

This has been the biggest disconnect that I've found for many players trying out 5e. They come in with expectations that the entire system works the way it does in their preferred system. When I ran playtest games, I had 3.x/PF players simply assuming certain things worked the way they did in their preferred systems. They didn't even stop to ask about it. Just immediately ran with it. This required me to pull them up and say, "Actually, it works this way," which in turn resulted in comments like, "That's stupid. PF does it this way and it's better."

Man, I got over that real quick.

You have a distinct advantage of playing 1e in this area, even though it is not the clearest rules set you have had the time to work out all your unspoken house rules and are allowed to alter the game even in fundamental ways without anyone batting an eyelash because the interpretations have been done long ago and they are now second nature.

When I started playing and running games it was in the transition period between 1e & 2e. Every new group I formed or joined, the very first thing everyone would do is discuss their interpretations of the rules. Many DM's, myself included, had a few pages of their rulings and house rules for things that they'd distribute to players and often discuss. In fact, initially, this was one of the reasons why I was so excited about 3e. The fact that every group had many of the same house rules or the same interpretations meant I was glad that a new edition was more codified. As time went on, however, I ended up butting my head against RAW and players who insisted on sticking to hardcore RAW and looking everything up, even during game play. It was the primary reason why I stopped playing 3.x.

 

[Sadrik]

When I started playing and running games it was in the transition period between 1e & 2e. Every new group I formed or joined, the very first thing everyone would do is discuss their interpretations of the rules. Many DM's, myself included, had a few pages of their rulings and house rules for things that they'd distribute to players and often discuss. In fact, initially, this was one of the reasons why I was so excited about 3e. The fact that every group had many of the same house rules or the same interpretations meant I was glad that a new edition was more codified. As time went on, however, I ended up butting my head against RAW and players who insisted on sticking to hardcore RAW and looking everything up, even during game play. It was the primary reason why I stopped playing 3.x.

I am no fan of RAW warriors. I am a fan of a consistent play experience. If you have an idea to make the game better then I am all for it. If you interpret text and slant it against the PCs or a player slants everything against the DM's encounters it is a problem. Don't claim this is just your interpretation as the designers intended or some such argument it can become convoluted and messy real quick. I guess my point is, I don't care why the rule is I care that it is consistent applied.

One of the nice things about 5e is that its chassis is very simple and house rules can be applied very easily. I expect that with good DMs and players you will see all kinds of new visions on how the game works. This is really cool.

DM fiat is only as good as the DM, having the players write down rulings as they are made in the group's house rule book can be a good thing to ensure a consistent experience. It can also help in discussing rules after the game and making consistent alterations.

 

[Thank Dog]

I guess my point is, I don't care why the rule is I care that it is consistent applied.

What if it's an absurd rule or conflict or combination?

For instance, the RAW around Dueling is that you don't get the damage bonus when using Unarmed attacks. But if you chop off someone else's hand and then use it as an improvised weapon, you would get the damage bonus.

To me, this is just stupid. But if you insist on doing everything by RAW and only care about consistency, then these types of situations will always come up since RAW isn't perfect and never will be, short of having a book twenty inches thick full of rules to cover every conceivable scenario.