D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[doctorbadwolf]

Personally I think the RAW on that one was pretty clear. Or at least, the wording was definitely correct English if the intended meaning was the one JC confirmed on Twitter. But I don’t blame folks for doubting that was the intent, nor for choosing to rule counter to it.

Exactly. Natural language means reading the text with correct grammar and assuming that the wording and grammar are intentional. If they’d meant it to be casual langauge they’d have used that phrase, which means a different thing.

People misread the text as well (as evidenced by people who claimed that the language was the same for TWF), which didn’t help.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the major issue was that a number of other SAs prior to that had come down on the opposite side of the "correct English" meaning (something that continues to this day), which lead to a lot of people very much doubting the RAI even where they agreed that was the RAW, and a fair chunk of people didn't even think it was the RAW (again in part because D&D rules aren't always "correct English").

Yeah, like I said, I don’t blame anyone for doubting the “correct” meaning of the RAW was consistent with the RAI. It’s “clear” in a vacuum, but in the context of other D&D rulings that are often counter-intuitive, it’s understandable to doubt that apparent clarity, to suspect that the intent differed from the plain English meaning.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Picard facepalm is pretty much all I can say to that.

And yeah, you're accusing everyone else of either arguing in bad faith or arguing in good faith but being too dumb to understand what was going on. You can phrase it as "invested", but it amounts to the same thing.

I’m not, and it doesnt

So, you can't even remember the ruling or even think about how the logic would work, but you remember all the threads well enough to know everyone else was arguing in bad faith?

apperently you’ve a shortage of understanding of how memory works. Perhaps you have a very clear and consistent memory that might as well use the Dewey decimal system, but many of the rest of have clear or unclear memory of a thing pretty much at random.

So, yes, I mixed up the SA on TWF and that on shield master. Of course since I quote clearly understand the logic of the UA, and am not accusing anyone of bad faith (well, you are seeming more and more to be acting in bad faith now), the rest of the above quotes text is rather nonsensical.

Ok again we are back to Picard facepalm territory I'm afraid.

Considering you don’t seem to have done more than skim my post before replying to it, and thus failed to even engage with my points, preferring to just nitpick and take umbrage with things I didn’t say, all while once again being dismissive, condescending, and posting as if your goal is “Internet win points” rather than any sort of honest discussion...the above is quite ironic.

 

[GlassJaw]

That’s not what I’m saying, but okay.

Taking your history of posting into account, that's how you come across. I'm not going to get into a back and forth beyond that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

posting as if your goal is “Internet win points” rather than any sort of honest discussion...the above is quite ironic.

Wow. Okay, sure buddy, let's go with that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Picard facepalm is pretty much all I can say to that.

And yeah, you're accusing everyone else of either arguing in bad faith or arguing in good faith but being too dumb to understand what was going on. You can phrase it as "invested", but it amounts to the same thing.

So, you can't even remember the ruling or even think about how the logic would work, but you remember all the threads well enough to know everyone else was arguing in bad faith?

Ok again we are back to Picard facepalm territory I'm afraid.

I think the major issue was that a number of other SAs prior to that had come down on the opposite side of the "correct English" meaning (something that continues to this day), which lead to a lot of people very much doubting the RAI even where they agreed that was the RAW, and a fair chunk of people didn't even think it was the RAW (again in part because D&D rules aren't always "correct English").

Might I suggest the captain obvious facepalm alternative for cranking it up a notch?

@Charlaquin makes a great point about how WotC's rulings over time make a mockery of things like stare decisis or allowing precedent of past WotC/GM decisions & rulings to hold some reasonable value worth considering when similar or related things come up absolutely makes things clear as mud in many areas over time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Might I suggest the captain obvious facepalm alternative for cranking it up a notch?

@Charlaquin makes a great point about how WotC's rulings over time make a mockery of things like stare decisis or allowing precedent of past WotC/GM decisions & rulings to hold some reasonable value worth considering when similar or related things come up absolutely makes things clear as mud in many areas over time.

Y'all know naughty word got real when stare decisis gets rolled out.

 

[tetrasodium]

Y'all know naughty word got real when stare decisis gets rolled out.

I think it's a great analog for the importance of gm precedent. It's one thing to make a one off ruling in the moment & then decide otherwise down the line, but over time there should be some stability & inferable reasoning to GM decisions so the players can try to plan accordingly & feel like the gm is a fair arbiter. stare decisis is similar enough & has an endless number of writings talking about all of those kinds of reasons just with a different context.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think it's a great analog for the importance of gm precedent. It's one thing to make a one off ruling in the moment & then decide otherwise down the line, but over time there should be some stability & inferable reasoning to GM decisions so the players can try to plan accordingly & feel like the gm is a fair arbiter. stare decisis is similar enough & has an endless number of writings talking about all of those kinds of reasons just with a different context.

I agree and honestly I'm just somewhat surprised, given the number of lawyers I have in my group that I haven't been told "You can't rule that, stare decisis!" yet. I am pretty consistent in my rulings though (if only because my tiny mind works in predictable ways).

 

[Parmandur]

Might I suggest the captain obvious facepalm alternative for cranking it up a notch?

@Charlaquin makes a great point about how WotC's rulings over time make a mockery of things like stare decisis or allowing precedent of past WotC/GM decisions & rulings to hold some reasonable value worth considering when similar or related things come up absolutely makes things clear as mud in many areas over time.

Rule of Cool and Rule of Fun are way more important to my magical Elf make-believe games than stare decisis, personally.

This is about being a Dungeon Master in an alcohol and cheetos fueled romp, not the Emperor Justinian formulating a Law Code for all time.