Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Part of another thread inspired me to bring up this larger subject for everyone to debate.
How do you interpret the rules of D&D? Where would you draw the line between rules interpretation, and house ruling? What sources do you use to interpret the rules? Which of those sources do you think are binding, and which are non-binding but helpful advice?
I believe there are basically three types of rules interpreters. I think all three are equally legitimate methods of interpreting the rules, just different. I'm not judging any of these types as being better or worse than the other types. I also don't think these are the only possible types of rules interpreters, that there are not variations on these types, or that the list is complete. I invite criticism, comments, and questions regarding this list.
Also, please don't take the title of each type as meaning anything political or psychological, or having any meaning towards how people think about the world in general. A conservative person might be a liberal constructionist, and a liberal person might be a strict constructionist. They are just titles (honest).
1. The strict constructionist. These folks view the core rule books as basically holy books. The text of the rules, rather than the intent or real world logic, is what is most important to the strict constructionist. Nothing outside those books, other than official errata to those books, is "official rules". That means splatbooks, expansion books, campaign books, customer service email advice, sage advice in Dragon magazine, sage advice in email, advice of people who participated in the creation of rules but who no longer are directly employed by WOTC (such as Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds), the official FAQ (though some strict constructionist place this along with the Official Errata), and real world logic (which has little bearing on a fantasy game that uses magic, to a strict constructionist) have little to no use for rules interpretation. The text means just what it says in the core rules and official errata, and the rest is just useful for making a house rule.
2. The moderate constructionist. These folks accept some parol evidence to help interpret the core rules, as long as that advice is in a public forum sufficient to show some backing by WOTC of that text. The intent of the rules, rather than the strict text of the rules or real world logic, is what is most important to the moderate constructionist. Therefore, anything publicly produced by the drafter of the rules (WOTC) is useful in interpreting the intent of the core rules text. The official WOTC errata, splatbooks (by WOTC), expansion books (by WOTC), campaign books (by WOTC), sage advice published in Dragon magazine, and the official FAQ are all part of interpreting the rules in the core rule books. However, advice or rules statements from non-public sources, or non-WOTC sources, are not a direct part of this process. Such questionable sources include customer service emails, sage advice emails, advice of people who participated in the creation of the rules (such as Monte Cook), and real-world logic can be useful in interpreting the rules, but often as not it is just as useful for making a house rule.
3. Liberal constructionist. These folks accept parol evidence to help interpret the core rules, as long as that advice is logical. Logical rules, rather that WOTCs intent or the strict text of the rules, is what is most important to the liberal constructionist. Therefore, any logical advice on the rules are useful in interpreting the core rules text. The official errata, splatbooks, expansion books, campaign books, sage advice both published in Dragon magazine and in email, the official FAQ, WOTC customer service advice in emails, advice of people who drafted some of the rules to begin with (whether or not they are currently employed by WOTC), and third party advice are all part of interpreting the rules in the core rule books, as long as those text or advice are logical. Something becomes a house rule, instead of a rules interpretation, when it finds no good support from logical sources as an interpretation of existing core rules, but is instead an entirely new rule.
How do you interpret the rules of D&D? Where would you draw the line between rules interpretation, and house ruling? What sources do you use to interpret the rules? Which of those sources do you think are binding, and which are non-binding but helpful advice?
I believe there are basically three types of rules interpreters. I think all three are equally legitimate methods of interpreting the rules, just different. I'm not judging any of these types as being better or worse than the other types. I also don't think these are the only possible types of rules interpreters, that there are not variations on these types, or that the list is complete. I invite criticism, comments, and questions regarding this list.
Also, please don't take the title of each type as meaning anything political or psychological, or having any meaning towards how people think about the world in general. A conservative person might be a liberal constructionist, and a liberal person might be a strict constructionist. They are just titles (honest).
1. The strict constructionist. These folks view the core rule books as basically holy books. The text of the rules, rather than the intent or real world logic, is what is most important to the strict constructionist. Nothing outside those books, other than official errata to those books, is "official rules". That means splatbooks, expansion books, campaign books, customer service email advice, sage advice in Dragon magazine, sage advice in email, advice of people who participated in the creation of rules but who no longer are directly employed by WOTC (such as Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds), the official FAQ (though some strict constructionist place this along with the Official Errata), and real world logic (which has little bearing on a fantasy game that uses magic, to a strict constructionist) have little to no use for rules interpretation. The text means just what it says in the core rules and official errata, and the rest is just useful for making a house rule.
2. The moderate constructionist. These folks accept some parol evidence to help interpret the core rules, as long as that advice is in a public forum sufficient to show some backing by WOTC of that text. The intent of the rules, rather than the strict text of the rules or real world logic, is what is most important to the moderate constructionist. Therefore, anything publicly produced by the drafter of the rules (WOTC) is useful in interpreting the intent of the core rules text. The official WOTC errata, splatbooks (by WOTC), expansion books (by WOTC), campaign books (by WOTC), sage advice published in Dragon magazine, and the official FAQ are all part of interpreting the rules in the core rule books. However, advice or rules statements from non-public sources, or non-WOTC sources, are not a direct part of this process. Such questionable sources include customer service emails, sage advice emails, advice of people who participated in the creation of the rules (such as Monte Cook), and real-world logic can be useful in interpreting the rules, but often as not it is just as useful for making a house rule.
3. Liberal constructionist. These folks accept parol evidence to help interpret the core rules, as long as that advice is logical. Logical rules, rather that WOTCs intent or the strict text of the rules, is what is most important to the liberal constructionist. Therefore, any logical advice on the rules are useful in interpreting the core rules text. The official errata, splatbooks, expansion books, campaign books, sage advice both published in Dragon magazine and in email, the official FAQ, WOTC customer service advice in emails, advice of people who drafted some of the rules to begin with (whether or not they are currently employed by WOTC), and third party advice are all part of interpreting the rules in the core rule books, as long as those text or advice are logical. Something becomes a house rule, instead of a rules interpretation, when it finds no good support from logical sources as an interpretation of existing core rules, but is instead an entirely new rule.
