D&D 5E D&D is Not RAW: The Importance of Custom, Culture, and Mods in 5e

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I don't know. Maybe I'm just that snobby know-it-all, but I don't really feel that "oh my God this game structure can really well work for emulating that superhero cartoon for kids I love for some reason" or "Cthulhu fhtagn! This game just begs to be hacked for lovecraftian horror!" when I look at big midschool ruleset without a clearly stated purpose, my first thought would be "ok, maybe I can use it to run a spaghetti western, I guess, if I figure out a way to put six-shooters in it..."

And judging by the perceived (and totally anecdotal) rules modification to setting/flavour modification ratio, I'm not entirely alone.

Not alone, but still way off in left field from my perspective. I personally think you completely miss the point and not of hacking D&D

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Rules of some sort actually have to exist in order for us to fairly play a game. If there are no rules, if it is all continuous ad-hoc invention that can be changed under my feet as a player at any moment, then we are not playing a game. You're telling me a story, but manipulating me into thinking I have some say in it.

RAW is a vital part of RPGs, just as much as tinkering. If there is genuinely actually zero RAW, any difference between D&D and Let's Pretend vanishes.

Also, creating your own settings...isn't a RAW thing at all, like...settings are entirely outside the question of RAW and rulings and the like.

 

[Ancalagon]

Rules of some sort actually have to exist in order for us to fairly play a game. If there are no rules, if it is all continuous ad-hoc invention that can be changed under my feet as a player at any moment, then we are not playing a game. You're telling me a story, but manipulating me into thinking I have some say in it.

RAW is a vital part of RPGs, just as much as tinkering. If there is genuinely actually zero RAW, any difference between D&D and Let's Pretend vanishes.

Also, creating your own settings...isn't a RAW thing at all, like...settings are entirely outside the question of RAW and rulings and the like.

I'm not sure you were reacting to my GLOG comment, but what I meant by "there is no RAW" is that there is no official RAW. there are several sets of rules

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not sure you were reacting to my GLOG comment, but what I meant by "there is no RAW" is that there is no official RAW. there are several sets of rules

Hadn't even seen your post; was only replying to the OP.

Official-ness is unimportant, as far as I'm concerned. You're using a set of rules. Those rules either really matter to some extent, and only change with deliberation (and with the players being informed as such), or they don't matter to any extent and thus change arbitrarily (with or without players being informed). RAW doesn't mean "absolutely fixed and unchanging" unless you require that the only rules that are allowed to matter are received from a third party, which is quite uncommon in practice. Doesn't mean the rules agreed upon by the table suddenly vanish. Just means they're used, and changed, by consent.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Hadn't even seen your post; was only replying to the OP.

That wasn’t really a response to the OP either- so I see the confusion.

 

[Alzrius]

A. Social norms. Social norms are the general norms that we have that govern how we interact as a group; they aren't specific to RPGs, but they are the social grease of any social situation. Since RPGs are inherently a social game, these always apply. This would be simple things like, "Don't commit to playing and not show up." Or, "Remember to wear pants."

Believe it or not, sometimes people do forget their pants when heading out to game.

 

[Garthanos]

Interesting read everyone!

 

[Lyxen]

In fact, I would say that the only game of D&D that isn't very D&D is a game that is entirely RAW.

I would not go that far, because in particular OD&D, BECMI and 5e (and A&D 1e, which was actually a huge toolbox, many parts of which were ignored but which needed many complements to run smoothly) really encourage(d) you to make your own rulings. This means that, in those editions, it was expected, by design, that the RAW would be completed by rulings, and in the other editions, it was really a question of which options you allowed, which made it custom as well.

But if you compare with other games, the fact is that usually the ruleset is very much adapted to the specific setting and the types of adventures that you want to run. D&D is extremely generic, and played by many more people than any other game. So people who play other games, usually have setting that they want to explore, and rules that are adapted to that setting. So running it RAW is certainly an option.

In the end, I think I've sort of lost my way here, but what I meant is that it's normal that D&D is custom almost per table, it's not only a question of design but of the fact that it adresses many more setting, peoples, tables, etc. than other games.

 

[Krachek]

For what he see here,
most home brew are in fact setting adjustments and don’t alter core rules,
the rest of homebrew are very close to variant propose in the DM guide,
so mostly people play RAW.
But RAW allow a wider range of play style than people expect,
and we can see arguing where both side are within the scope of RAW.