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

[Siberys]

That's a problem that is very particular to that system and the system it is based on. The issue of this thread is whether or not the same applies to 5e.

Having not played any 5e, I went for an example I was knowledgeable about - PF. But ultimately, PF was just an example. The sort of things I'm talking about are things I consider general design principles. Both RAW and RAI exist in PF and in 5e; I was illustrating a place in the former where relying on RAI was detrimental. I meant for that to indicate that, if there were a similar situation in 5e, it would also be detrimental.

To put it more clearly, perhaps; RAW should be, ideally, unambiguous, and the GM is capable of changing it if they so choose. RAI is always ambiguous, and the GM is forced to make a ruling. I think unambiguous rules are better than ambiguous rules. I also think putting more of a workload on the GM by requiring them to make rulings is at best unnecessary. Therefore, I believe that intentionally writing rules on the assumption that each table will make a ruling to fit is at the very least inefficient and at worst can harm the game by creating wildly diverging expectations between playgroups.

 

[billd91]

With respect to the LotR, which one are you saying is "down to earth" and which one "amazing"?

From pp 446-7 of my one-volume edition:

"Where sight fails the earth may bring us rumour," said Aragorn. "The land must groan under their hated feet." He stretched himself upon the ground with his ear pressed against the turf. . . . At last he rose, and now his friends could see his face: it was pale and drawn, and his look was troubled.

"The rumour of the earth is dim and confused," he said. "Nothing walks upon if for many miles about us. Faint and far are the feet of our enemies. But loud are the hoofs of the horses. . . . [T]hey are drawing ever further from us, riding northward. I wonder what is happening in this land!"​

Also on pp 270-71:

If a man must needs walk in sight of the Black Gate, or tread the deadly flowers of Morgul Vale, then perils he will have. I, too, despaired at last, and I began my homeward journey. And then, by fortune, I came suddenly on what I sought: the maks of soft feet beside a muddy pool. But now the trail was fresh and swift . . . Along the skirts of the Dead Marshes I followed it, and then I had him.​

Aragorn seems like he could track someone across cobblestones!

You're using a quote in which Aragorn is candid about his limitations and inability to decypher what is going on and another about finding tracks by a muddy pool to infer he can track someone across cobblestones? Seriously?

 

[BryonD]

never mind

 

[pemerton]

You're using a quote in which Aragorn is candid about his limitations and inability to decypher what is going on

You mean his ability to hear footsteps through the ground tens of miles away?

And his ability to stumble upon tracks in a swamp just at the right time, after having been searcing unsuccessfully to the point of near-despair?

 

[KarinsDad]

You mean his ability to hear footsteps through the ground tens of miles away?

And his ability to stumble upon tracks in a swamp just at the right time, after having been searcing unsuccessfully to the point of near-despair?

Yes, but neither of these two sound as implausible as tracking across cobblestones do (especially in a busy town, and/or without things like a blood trail). The first is commonly attributed to American Indians (which is probably where Tolkien got it) and theoretically not that difficult, and the latter can happen through sheer dumb luck (although sticking near waterways should increase the odds of finding tracks if the prey has to head towards water at times).

I would give a much lower DC to both of these two examples than tracking across cobblestones. That one sounds almost supernatural (again, shy of something special).

For example, although the excrement idea of yours is fine, I would think that in a non-busy town, people would rarely step into excrement. On the other hand, in a busy town, people might step into excrement, but a) multiple people might do that, and b) how do the PCs know that their quarry is the one who stepped into it? It just seems to be a justification for why the DM decided to "just say yes", but not a very logical one. Just a plausible justification.

All in all, tracking over cobblestone would seem to be incredibly difficult.

 

[ExploderWizard]

All in all, tracking over cobblestone would seem to be incredibly difficult.

Lord Baltimore could do that- at night!!

 

[Hussar]

I think this tracking example is a very good example of why RAW is so important. Karinsdad is making a ruling based on his gut. He feels that tracking over cobblestones is more difficult than hearing a noise through the ground from ten miles away. Thing is, I'm imagining that this is just a gut feeling and not actually based on any facts. One would hope that when game designers create rules for tracking, they would actually do a smidgeon of research into the matter and be able to make fairly definitive rulings that are not based on simple gut feeling.

Having solid RAW means you stop having arguments about whether you can swim in armour (you actually can) or a katana can cut through a tank (it can't).

Another good example of why a solid RAW is important comes from the Camping is Dangerous thread. Specifically, in the that thread, the DM made a gut ruling about waking up from an ally on watch yelling - DC 20 - which in turn led to a near TPK of the party. Presuming that this outcome was not what the DM wanted, solid RAW rules should include strong suggestions for how to choose DC's. And even when DC's are necessary.

You don't necessarily need a specific rule for every individual thing, but, having strong, specific rules for general adjudication is a must, IMO. Things like Savage World's Rule of 4 - where any final score of 4 or more is a success on any action. The only thing you need to change is die size (determined by abilities in the character) and modifiers (normally chosen from a fairly short list and often not chosen at all).

 

[Savage Wombat]

But can he track a falcon on a cloudy day?

 

[Werebat]

Having solid RAW means you stop having arguments about whether you can swim in armour (you actually can) or a katana can cut through a tank (it can't).

Standby for Otaku Rage!!!

 

[Mistwell]

I think this tracking example is a very good example of why RAW is so important. Karinsdad is making a ruling based on his gut. He feels that tracking over cobblestones is more difficult than hearing a noise through the ground from ten miles away. Thing is, I'm imagining that this is just a gut feeling and not actually based on any facts. One would hope that when game designers create rules for tracking, they would actually do a smidgeon of research into the matter and be able to make fairly definitive rulings that are not based on simple gut feeling.

Having solid RAW means you stop having arguments about whether you can swim in armour (you actually can) or a katana can cut through a tank (it can't).

Another good example of why a solid RAW is important comes from the Camping is Dangerous thread. Specifically, in the that thread, the DM made a gut ruling about waking up from an ally on watch yelling - DC 20 - which in turn led to a near TPK of the party. Presuming that this outcome was not what the DM wanted, solid RAW rules should include strong suggestions for how to choose DC's. And even when DC's are necessary.

You don't necessarily need a specific rule for every individual thing, but, having strong, specific rules for general adjudication is a must, IMO. Things like Savage World's Rule of 4 - where any final score of 4 or more is a success on any action. The only thing you need to change is die size (determined by abilities in the character) and modifiers (normally chosen from a fairly short list and often not chosen at all).

You are confusing "Having RAW" and "Having a well researched, really good RAW". You almost never get the later. And given that, merely having RAW gets you nothing in this category of concerns.

For instance, you seem to imagine simply doing a "smigeon" of research on the matter of "tracking over cobblestones is more difficult than hearing a noise through the ground from ten miles away." would yield a "good" and "well researched" RAW. To me, this statement has no basis in reality. In fact, I find it hard to take such a claim seriously. No "smigeon" of research in such an esoteric subject will yield good results. Better to spend your time giving people good guidelines to judge it themselves should the topic ever (on very rare occasion) come up. I really REALLY do not want rules writers to be researching that level of minutia just to put out a game.

Same goes for your other highly useless factoids. This is not a medieval fantasy simulation game - we don't need a bunch of research on the ability to swim in armor or ability of a katana to cut through a tank.