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

[Pandamonium87]

NO, AND I'M GLAD BECAUSE RAW IS THE DEATH OF ROLEPLAYING

 

[Psikerlord#]

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?

The devs have tweeted that an "FAQ" is coming. Even so however, I understand the approach for 5e is "ruings, not rules" and for each table to "make the rules their own". In one sense neither RAW nor RAI matters very greatly, instead it is the interpretation that the table wants that matters. Not only interpretation of vague rules, but whole substitution of rules, too, just coz the table wants it.

I greatly prefer this approach, as each table will make rulings that best suit them and give them the game experience they prefer. I still think "raw" is important in the sense that it is the baseline from which each table will make rulings, and RAI gives an insight into why the devs like a particular rule or think its a good idea, which ought to help each table keep balance in mind before adopting a rule.

In some cases table rulings will be inevitable (eg stealth), in others the rulings will be for table preference, moving away from RAW entirely (eg: swap lightfoot halfling hide behind ally ability for the wood elf hide ability).

So to answer the OP, both RAW and RAI remain important, but most important of are the wishes of the table, with the DM having the final call.

 

[TerraDave]

5E has all kinds of RAW: when can a rogue sneak attack (with advantage or an ally is within 5 ft. of the target), how many 1st level spells can a level 1 wizard cast (2), what is the speed of a dwarf (25 ft), how many times can you fail a death save before dying (3), how long can you use rope trick to hide in the extradimensional space you summoned (1 hour), how many miles can you travel in a day without a perception penalty (24).

5E is not rules light (with 1000 pages or so of "core rules") nor is it all open to interpretation. Some of it is open to interpretation. How hard is it to open that lock, or walk on that beam, or hide behind the tree? Even these are given guidance, but yes, the DM makes the call.

Its a mix of RAW and not. Not teriyaki. Not sashimi. More like sushi.

 

[Stalker0]

In terms of rules debates, it comes down to the following:


RAW: The nice thing about RAW is that it can be concretely debated in most cases. We can go full rules lawyer and determine what the rules say. I think there is always value in that, though its not the end of the story.

RAI: I agree with others that say the "I" can be very hard to define....and to me that is not the point. The point is to say "we are generally seeing 2 primary interpretations of this rule...what is the impact to the game for each one?"

In other words, I don't care which way is "right", I only care if either way is "broken".

I will use a current forum debate as an example: Magic Missile having a "hit" clause that allows it to interact with other abilities (such as the assassin's autocrit ability). The RAW is still being worked through, the RAI debate...is heavily debated. To me, its more important to say "if you treat MM as having a hit clause, then the following class features can do XYZ with MM". Then you lay out XYZ, and let the community decide if those abilities would be "broken". If neither interpretation heavily influences the game...then the debate is fairly pointless for most people.


So for me, RAI is less "Rules as Intended" and more "Rules as Impactful"

 

[Uder]

Exactly.

Hi Ron. Can't believe someone's trying to out-old you, PA "nerd cred" attack to boot! Five minutes penalty in a booth with Terry Austin and OGURBOY!

 

[Hussar]

To me, the problems always lie at the far ends of the spectrum. Both strict adherence to RAW or RAI makes problems. With strict adherence to RAW you run into needing a rule for everything. With a heavy dose of RAI, you wind up playing Mother May I where players are mostly trying to game the DM instead of actually trying to just play the game.

Both are problematic. You need fairly easy to understand, robust RAW which at least gets everyone on the same page when dealing with something in the game. "You gain +2 to attack when flanking a creature (and flanking is defined as being on opposite sides of a creature" isn't really subject to RAI. It's clear cut and everyone understands and uses it in the game.

OTOH, allowing enough flex in the rules so that DM's can smooth over those situations that don't come up that often and tend to lie at the edges of RAW, "Just how do you flank a really big monster, can I flank if I'm invisible" that sort of thing is perfectly fine.

One of the big problems though, that I find, is that people presume that just because they are sitting in the DM chair, they are automatically entitled to be 100% trusted by the players. Sorry, no. Trust is earned, not automatic.

 

[Uder]

My problem with RAW, RAI, CLIntS or any of those acronyms is that they lead to a forum game of arguing rules that is completely unrelated to playing the game. GAP is king as far as am concerned.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Strong RAW give you a foundation for your game. Playing RAI means things are murky. It can lead to inconsistent calls, you are guessing at what the writers intended, and the biggest problem it is often leads to on the spot calls.

First of all, to make things clear, what the writers intend is not a priority concern. The writers provide a system and a great many suggestions that may or may not be the most fun for our group. If the game is largely fun as written then less modification may be needed but no game out of the box is going to be a perfect fit without some tweaking.

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. Ideally the people writing the rules have more experience with the system than you and there is a reason certain things are set-up certain ways. Later on your off the cuff ruling could combine with other off the cuff rulings and lead to something absurd which you now have to make up another rule on the spot "that is not allowed." It takes too much time to consider all the consequences of a ruling to do so properly during a game.

Nonsense. I have no idea where the idea that some game designer is almighty and powerful, and a DM who knows his players is always some bumbling fool who cannot make a call without goofing things up got started but it needs to die.

I think too many DMs believe this utter crap and doubt themselves out of being the best DMs they can be. Even worse is the effect that this poison attitude has on perspective DMs. The DM isn't some entertainment machine there to function as a game server for the players. He/she is a fellow participant in the game and a human being. The DM is there to have a good time too and puts quite a bit more work into making that happen than the players. People make mistakes, learn from them, and improve, players and DMs alike. How many people are scared to try and run a game because they are too worried about being perfect?

So a few bad calls happen now and again. Discuss them after the game and work out the underlying problem like rational people. It is a game of make believe. If something terrible happens to your elf due to a bad call it isn't the end of the world. I am not even remotely a casual player. I have been playing and running games for 34 years and have invested a great deal of time into the hobby. Even so, it IS still just a game meant to be fun.

People also get emotional with RAI. I rarely see people striving for the real RAI. More often that are pushing for the "Rules as I want them to be" or the "Rules as I think they should be." RAW is a more emotionless interpretation, it just needs strong rules to work well. If a rule is written vaguely you are forced to interpret and that interpretation can go wrong. Meanwhile with clearly defined rules you are a clear correct interpretation, even if it is stupid. Using strong RAW if it says you can wear pants on your head for +1 AC, you can wear pants on your head for +1 AC. You just admit that rule is dumb and move on.

That's why I am a fan of strong, well written, and thought out RAW. You can then house rule or do whatever if you want your game to be different. The solid foundation from the RAW will making the game with your house rules better.

This is the strongest argument in favor of RAI that I have ever seen.

To those of us that believe the rules should serve the game, a stupid interpretation doesn't work. The campaign and what is happening in it are more important than slavishly folowing a set of rules. If a GPS device sends you off the side of a cliff, is that really the best route even IF it is technically the fastest route to your destination?

If your game exists only to serve the rules then have fun with that.

The big problem with solid RAW is that they are very hard to do correctly. It really does take iterating, you have small team writing the rules and a huge player base beating on the rules attempting to break them. The larger population will always win. Just look at video games as an example. All the great multiplayer games have gone through multiple iterations. No one gets Starcraft or Street Fighter right on the first attempt. The only games that don't need balance patches are single player games where you don't care about the flaws in balance and design that get found. This is a problem for D&D because iterating to keep up with player innovation is very difficult.

A game shouldn't be an arms race of stupid rules vs player innovation. Clever people will eventually figure out a workaround to any static pattern. So patching the pattern in response to clever solutions is a ponderous waste of time. A simple core rule set with a skilled adjudicator is far more flexible and resistant to breakage than an eloborate web of heavy rules more likely to collapse under its own weight than work as intended.

So long as one can understand the difference between the game and the rules and ensure the game retains priority, the actual mechanics are almost an afterthought.

 

[Werebat]

Hi Ron. Can't believe someone's trying to out-old you, PA "nerd cred" attack to boot! Five minutes penalty in a booth with Terry Austin and OGURBOY!

LOL! What ever happened to Terry, anyway? I can imagine he'd have even more trouble than I do fitting in on these newfangled moderated web forums.

 

[Uder]

LOL! What ever happened to Terry, anyway? I can imagine he'd have even more trouble than I do fitting in on these newfangled moderated web forums.

Y'know, I think I was mixing him up with MSB, Terry wasn't exactly a pit bull.

As for where he is now, wasn't he big into Chivalry & Sorcery? Does C&S have any sort of online fandom these days?