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

[Parmandur]

Certain countries?

AFAIK that's only present in the US. It is not present nor possible in the UK (unsure if in Australia/Canada). Electing judges or making them political appointees is a recipe for disaster regardless of Civil or Common Law. You can weaponize judge appointments in Civil Law because they can factor in precedent way less and make decisions more in your favour. Just don't elect judges or let politicians appoint them!

But yeah it can be a strength in some ways.

I was trying to keep it more generic, to avoid spiraling too far afield.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I was trying to keep it more generic, to avoid spiraling too far afield.

Sorry lol my American wife and I had a lengthy discussion on this a few months ago (we agreed fortunately) - she's at the end of a British law degree.

 

[Parmandur]

Sorry lol my American wife and I had a lengthy discussion on this a few months ago (we agreed fortunately) - she's at the end of a British law degree.

Well, TIL that elected politicians don't appoint judges in the UK and probably most other Common Law countries, so that's pretty cool. Another brick in the wall of my disillusionment with my home country, lol.

Still, in regards to the game rules, stare decisis is a questionable importation, and really does not capture how Crawford operates at all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, TIL that elected politicians don't appoint judges in the UK and probably most other Common Law countries, so that's pretty cool. Another brick in the wall of my disillusionment with my home country, lol.

Still, in regards to the game rules, stare decisis is a questionable importation, and really does not capture how Crawford operates at all.

Right. DnD rules aren't a legal code. They are guidelines for play written in natural language (which is not casual language), meant to be interpreted by a DM. Sage Advice is there for when someone doesn't get a rule, and needs clarification.

The idea that it's a bad thing for them to change a ruling is just...mind boggling, to me.

Edit: Look at the Sage Advice page linked by someone above. The first answer simply states that the rules for monsters and gear are intentionally generous and in the hands of the DM. Then someone responds with, "Okay that's for monsters, what about animals?" I just....my dude.

Mearls then gives some advice to a different person that amounts to "Sure, why not? Don't get hung up on it."

Then Mearls adresses Wild Shape, reasonably pointing out that WS doesn't specify that you gain the armor proficiencies of your beast form, but that if the animal would have proficiency, you would in wild shape as well. Basically, whether an animal is proficient is loose and up to the DM. Whether you are proficient is also up to the DM, but by RAW would be based on the same DM's ruling on that animal's proficiency with armor. So, if you turn into a wolf, and the DM has allowed wolf friends to be proficient in armor, you are. If the DM hasn't, you aren't. Makes sense.

Digging deeper with subsequent searches, I found Jeremy noting that armor made for a human is, well, made for a human, when asked about magic armor and wild shape. A natural reading of the rules text. To another query, he simply restates that the DM decides whether a nonhumanoid creature can use a given item made for humanoids.

I found some gems where people really struggle to understand the explicitly clear rule that AC calculations don't stack, and one that seemed to forget that Unarmored Defense is specifically 10+dex+wis (wanted the natural armor of a wolf to stack with dex and wis. nope, it's a specific formula)

Most of the things I see him answer on twitter could literally be replaced with "just read the relevant rules text, please." and be effectively the same answer.

 

[Charlaquin]

Right. DnD rules aren't a legal code. They are guidelines for play written in natural language (which is not casual language), meant to be interpreted by a DM. Sage Advice is there for when someone doesn't get a rule, and needs clarification.

The idea that it's a bad thing for them to change a ruling is just...mind boggling, to me.

Personally, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for them to change a ruling at all. I do think it’s a bad thing to remove a nuanced discussion of the design intent and potential implications of changing it, in favor of a straightforward statement of how the rule works. I think Sage Advice would be far more useful if it still actually went into RAW, RAI, and RAF on commonly debated rulings, and leave Twitter for the straightforward clarifications of RAW.

 

[clearstream]

So what can we take away from all this? First of all, ignore Sage Advice. All it’s ever going to give you is a legalistic reading that’s unlikely to be of any real use in a practical context. Second, let go of the idea of “official rulings.” 5e was explicitly designed to be interpreted by a DM, who, with feedback from their group, would fill in any gaps in the existing rules. There is no “official” source other than the text itself, which is why all you’ll get from tweeting Jeremy Crawford is a slight rephrasing of the text. And third of all, if someone tries to say Sage Advice or Crawford’s Twitter counts as RAW, point them here. It probably won’t change their minds, but it’ll probably be easier than trying to explain all this to them yourself. And with any luck, it will help spread awareness of the original intent behind Sage Advice and how it no longer fulfills that intent.

I really enjoyed your discussion and liked many of your points and supporting examples. Where my view diverges originates in the question of how we know the meaning of a rule at all? In the case of games I believe we rely upon overlapping contexts - other meanings - that are at a distant remove from any putative factual foundations.

One context is appeal to authority - for games, typically game designers, but also tournament referees and influential commentators, for example. SA is a crucial resource because it did and still contains statements that lend to interpretation.

 

[Charlaquin]

I really enjoyed your discussion and liked many of your points and supporting examples. Where my view diverges originates in the question of how we know the meaning of a rule at all? In the case of games I believe we rely upon overlapping contexts - other meanings - that are at a distant remove from any putative factual foundations.

One context is appeal to authority - for games, typically game designers, but also tournament referees and influential commentators, for example. SA is a crucial resource because it did and still contains statements that lend to interpretation.

I agree that authorial intent can be a valuable lens through which to analyze the rules. I guess my point was that I don’t think Sage Advice has been an accurate indication of authorial intent for some years now. I think it started out that way, but at some point the approach shifted from giving insight into RAI to simply clarifying RAW. And that can be useful in cases where RAW is unclear, but it isn’t really a different context than a technical reading of the text itself.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Personally, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for them to change a ruling at all. I do think it’s a bad thing to remove a nuanced discussion of the design intent and potential implications of changing it, in favor of a straightforward statement of how the rule works. I think Sage Advice would be far more useful if it still actually went into RAW, RAI, and RAF on commonly debated rulings, and leave Twitter for the straightforward clarifications of RAW.

I mean I wouldn't be opposed to a blog for that purpose, but I don't especially care what platform it's on, nor do I think it should replace a collection of the straightforward clarifications. Leaving that to twitter just makes it harder to find specific rulings.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

It gets both you and your players in the mindset that no one else's opinions of D&D matter and it's only your own opinions of D&D that do.

If you open the door to letting your players go searching for other people's choices on how the game is played and try and use it to trump your own rulings... you're never going to see the end of it. Plus, you're occasionally going to have situations where you DO feel strongly about a rule and are then going to have shut your player down who brought in another ruling trying to change your mind. Enjoy that confrontation when it happens.

5E's Rulings, Not Rules was intentionally chosen as a credo so that no one would have to spend their time (or as I might say it, waste their time) searching for just the right answer. Whatever you decide in the moment IS the right answer. If others agree with you, cool! But if they don't... it doesn't mean you were wrong.

A wise ruler seeks the advice of others and incorporates it into their own opinion.

Introspection in your decisions and the ability to change your mind when presented alternate views is a good thing, not something to avoid. At least in my opinion, anyway.

We have 4 different GMs at our table ...and each GM has their personal views on how to rule in a corner case. I tend to allow for "rule of cool" and always try to reinforce skill use and creative combat by being very generous in what I allow. When I'm a player, I might try to do X which I would rule as being possible but another GM does not. I'm a grown, mature adult and can accept their decision as "right for them" but at the same time not how I would do it.

Sometime I might make a ruling and the entire table disagrees with it. In those cases I will change it to accommodate the majority rule...because to me having 3-5 friends disagreeing with me tells me I'm overlooking something OR operating under different assumptions than the players were that got us to that point in the adventure.

 

[Parmandur]

A wise ruler seeks the advice of others and incorporates it into their own opinion.

Introspection in your decisions and the ability to change your mind when presented alternate views is a good thing, not something to avoid. At least in my opinion, anyway.

We have 4 different GMs at our table ...and each GM has their personal views on how to rule in a corner case. I tend to allow for "rule of cool" and always try to reinforce skill use and creative combat by being very generous in what I allow. When I'm a player, I might try to do X which I would rule as being possible but another GM does not. I'm a grown, mature adult and can accept their decision as "right for them" but at the same time not how I would do it.

Sometime I might make a ruling and the entire table disagrees with it. In those cases I will change it to accommodate the majority rule...because to me having 3-5 friends disagreeing with me tells me I'm overlooking something OR operating under different assumptions than the players were that got us to that point in the adventure.

What, being a reasonable adult willing to work with your table? Pretty sure that goes against the Gamers Creed.