D&D 5E JC Tweets: How Close to official rulings do you consider them to be?

[dave2008]

Curious, what do you think we should call Wotc's collection of rulings if not official rulings?

Simply rulings. "Official" makes them seem more important than they are.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, I don't agree with that. I place no value in what WotC says.

I have gotten a far better understanding of how to play 5e "by the rules" from [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]. I have learned how to present encounters better thanks to [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] ( I ignore anything he says about metagaming, though!). I have learned the glory that is the gnome paladin from [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION].

I could go on, but my point is that my game is better without listening to WotC.

I kind of think you are side stepping the question. You don't have to place any value on what they say. Just because you don't value their clarification mean it's not rules a clarification.

 

[FrogReaver]

Simply rulings. "Official" makes them seem more important than they are.

So WOTC's rulings?

If the ruling WOTC makes can't be called the "official ruling" then I think ya'll have some authority issues.

 

[Mistwell]

For me, I tend to borrow from contract law interpretation rules for adjudicating the rules. These include:

Intention of the parties - Sage advice and Crawfords tweets can help with this
Previous course of dealing - How prior versions of the game, and similar rules within that same game, dealt with it can be helpful.
Ordinary meaning - what the words mean in ordinary usage
Trade usage - what these kinds of rules tend to mean in RPGs in general
Four Corners Doctrine - what are the specific terms outlined within the four corners of that page of rules without reference to outside sources for interpretation

All of these can be helpful to adjudicate a rule and come up with a ruling.

 

[Satyrn]

I kind of think you are side stepping the question. You don't have to place any value on what they say. Just because you don't value their clarification mean it's not rules a clarification.

I guess, of you're pressing me to answer something other than "other", my answer is option 3. From what I hear, his tweets - and Sage Advice - are contradicting what he's said previously, and he's also started interpreting the rules literally.

I can do that just as well as he can.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I thought that quote was universally understood without needing to be uttered. I guess I was wrong?

Yes, most experienced RPG players and DMs would agree. However, this is the Internet, and reasonable people are often few and far between. Second, the document needs to be written to speak to new players and DMs who may be more familiar with games with much stricter rules sets. Which is to say, everything from Magic and 4e to most board games. It also needs to be written to speak to the RAW crowd on the Internet.

Furthermore, the fact that WotC explicitly mentions that even the rulings in the Sage Advice Compendium are the DM's purview is a statement about what purpose they serve in no uncertain terms. The fact that they added this means that they probably feel like people haven't been doing that and that a restatement of the obvious (to us) was necessary.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

 

[Bigsta]

Curious, what do you think we should call Wotc's collection of rulings if not official rulings?

Garbage that usually makes the game less fun.

 

[Mistwell]

Curious, what do you think we should call Wotc's collection of rulings if not official rulings?

Advice from a wise and learned man.

Oh I know, we could call it....SAGE advice!

Too herb-like?

 

[Yunru]

Advice from a wise and learned man.

Oh I know, we could call it....SAGE advice!

Too herb-like?

Advice from an old man that started to contradict itself and not make much sense?

I GOT IT!
SENILE ADVICE!