D&D General How to Read Rules in D&D

[Snarf Zagyg]

I didn't bother putting this in the OP, which was long enough already (like that ever stops me), but another way to look at rules interpretation is to look for parallel structures within the text.

Now. imagine you are having trouble understanding what "can only," means. One way to determine if this is language that indicates something is the "sole and exclusive means" of doing something within the rules is to examine other uses of the same language within the same ruleset. So the question arises- did Moldvay use the "can only" anywhere else in Basic?

And the answer is ... yes. It is used 14 times. Other than this rule, we have the following examples-
1. It {the Bless spell} can only be cast on creatures not in battle. B18
2. A person can only carry a limited amount of weight before being overloaded and unable to move. B20
3. An ochre jelly is an ochre-colored giant amoeba which can only be harmed by fire or cold. B40
4. Their (Pixies) small insect-like wings can only support pixies for 3 turns, and they must rest one full turn after flying.
5. Shadows are in-corporeal (ghost-like) intelligent creatures. They can only be harmed by magical weapons. B41
6. It (Wight) can only be hit by silvered or magical weapons. B44
7. Yellow mold can only be killed by fire; B44
8. Unless the description of the (magic) item states otherwise, the item can only be used once per
round. B47
9. A scroll can only be used once, for the words will fade from the scroll when they are read aloud. B49
10. Sometimes maps are only partially complete, or are written in the form of riddles, and can only be read by using a read languages spell. B49
11. This ring (of animal control)can only be used once per turn. B49
12. This item (crystal ball( can only be used by an elf or magic-
user. B50

Twelve other examples. I'd argue that eleven are clear examples of specific rules that are using "can only" to mean sole exclusive. Who can use a crystal ball? Only an elf or magic-user? What can hit a wight? Only silvered or magic weapons. How often can you read a scroll? One time only. How long can a Pixie fly? Only three turns. And so on.

Number two is the only one that isn't a clear reading, but that's because it's referring to the rest of page on encumbrance with all of the charts and tables.

Anyway, parallel structure is always a useful tool. If similar language is used in other words, it is probable that the language is used for the same purpose.

 

[conankeep]

And the answer is ... yes. It is used 14 times. Other than this rule, we have the following examples-
1. It {the Bless spell} can only be cast on creatures not in battle. B18
2. A person can only carry a limited amount of weight before being overloaded and unable to move. B20

Yeah so my example of "can only X by Y" language that clearly only states a requirement and not sufficiency ("You can only learn X by trying." as in "You can only learn backflips by trying") was discarded as irrelevant with a "Diagram that sentence and compare."

But all these examples are absolutely more relevant and don't require "diagram and compare". OK. cool. OK.

PS
Also "top class" behavior on moving to another thread I would have missed and wouldn't even have a chance to reply and defend my position, would not some other poster bring this thread into my attention... instead of just not ignoring my counter arguments in the original thread.

 

[KYRON45]

“Complicated seems clever to stupid people.” — Dave Trott

I'm pretty dumb. I read a rule and then just do what it says or ignore it.

Also...i don't know who Dave Trott is.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@conankeep

That thread was linked in the very opening of this thread. The purpose of this thread was to use the example of a clear rule in B/X to explain the process of analyzing rules in general- the steps that I go through (and find helpful) when trying to understand what a rule means, given that I post a lot of essays about rules from OD&D, B/X, and 1e.

People are welcome to visit your thread and evaluate your reasonable arguments. I am sure that they will find them convincing.

 

[KYRON45]

If there are threads that aren't from Snarf I don't want to read them*

*no one should be offended because i don't read Snarfs posts either.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Finding out which is part of the fun, presuming you realize that’s the spirit of the game.

Realize and appreciate.

One may realize that that's the spirit of the game, and yet, disliking games of that type of spirit, one might hope for something else instead.

 

[VashVet]

Realize and appreciate.

One may realize that that's the spirit of the game, and yet, disliking games of that type of spirit, one might hope for something else instead.

Thanks for the clarification, ER.

 

[Umbran]

Mod note:

So, I would like to remind folks that creating and chasing drama between threads isn't great, in terms of keeping a messageboard operating in a more-or-less congenial and constructive manner.

So, of course, we ask you to not do so - what happens in a thread should stay in that thread, and not start roaming around the boards mutating from discussion ro duscussion like a monster in a John Carpenter movie.

It doesn't matter how mean you think someone's being, or how stupid they may have been in another discussion. We ask you not to repeat and amplify mistakes already made.

Thanks much for your consideration.

 

[NotAYakk]

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

I'd be very careful with applying this rule to DnD rules. I find it generates more problems than it fixes.

When 3 ways to do something are listed, it is far from uncommon that elsewhere another way to do something is added, implicitly or explicitly. And if you follow the "listing excludes alternatives" rule this gives a very rigid interpretation of the rules.

These maxims from legalese aren't good to apply rigidly to DnD rules in my experience; they can be used as a starting point, but not as a conclusive hard rule.

 

[Willie the Duck]

"IDENTIFYING MAGIC ITEMS: A character can only identify the exact type of item by testing it (trying on the ring, sipping the potion, etc.). If a retainer does this testing, he or she will expect to keep the item. A high level NPC magic-user may be asked to identify an item, but will want money or a service in advance and may take several game weeks to do it." (Source: B47)
...
...But wait! That's not quite right, is it? Because the rule continues. There are, in fact, two other ways. You can have a hireling test the item, but then the hireling will assume the item is theirs. Or you can spend a lot of money and time and have an NPC MU test the item for you. Is there any other way in B/X? Well, by the text, the answer is no. Why? Well, at this point I'm gonna bring in some Latin. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. You snooze, you lose. As a general rule of construction, if things are explicitly listed, the omission of other things means that they are excluded. You are provided three, and only three, methods of identifying magic items in the rule- there are no others. You do not get other methods, you do no pass go, you do not collect $200.

Things like general rules of construction always intrigue me because of the conundrum left when there's an exception. Like, what happens if you violate said rule? In contract law, it'd be reckless and maybe make people question your professionalism. In writing an article for the New Yorker, less so. That (and newspaper articles in general) is where I've seen violations of this the most. No few essayists (some of which sounding very Snark-like) have started paragraph 17 with "and that brings me to the fourth, previously unmentioned, way one can skin a cat..." It can be great rhetorical showmanship*, but has the capacity to cause confusion -- particularly in something like a rulebook where people are often going to it for a specific topic and not reading whole sections in one go. I wouldn't want there to be a fourth way of identifying magic items not listed on B47 to appear on X13 without explanation -- but they could have done so*, and then what? Various A/D&Ds certainly have had multiple (sometimes contradicting) governing a subject** -- including, no doubt, some that explicitly or implicitly defined themselves as the exclusive rule on the matter.
*Moldvay/Cook even do it a little bit above, if only by separating the three options for identification into three sentences (with the first indicating itself as the only way). That could have been one sentence, or bullet points, but this was considered more artful or easy to read casually.
**Honestly, though, this is something I'd much more expect from Gygax himself than Moldvay, Cook, or Marsh.
***admittedly this is usually in different products published at different times, so it is often effectively 'this is the exclusive rule on the matter... right now.'

Sometimes, rules aren't always clear-cut from the text. In those cases, you can always look to extrinsic evidence. So for B/X, what type of extrinsic evidence would we consider? Remember- we are trying to understand what the rule in B/X, first published in 1982, means. So ideally, we are looking for contemporaneous sources. The best sources would be textual sources from that time. As I've previously written articles about, the TSR editions of OD&D, B/X, and AD&D are largely interoperable, so it might be interesting to see how the other TSR editions treated this rule!

This might be only interesting to me to think about, but what if Moldvay, Cook, and Marsh had wanted to definitively do something different than oD&D or AD&D? It was either the B/X team or Mentzer, but I recall one of them commenting that they were told to move the reading age to a certain level, make sure that it didn't contain certain stuff from AD&D (to keep up the legal notion of D&D and AD&D as distinct games), but otherwise had immense leeway in how they wanted to make the game. Holmes was vetoed on a spell-point system, but otherwise we haven't heard of anything they were told not to do. This specific case seems so trivial that I can't imagine them wanting to specifically, but I could imagine them doing so*.
*Mentzer certainly seems to have built the Warmachine rules for Companion, Weapon Mastery rules for Master, and everything surrounding the BECMI planes, gawds, and the quest for immortality thing.