Accidental double post.

RAW has been mostly for organized play so everyone's on the same sheets of music.

But if it's your home group, you can play however the group likes best. I remember attempting to run AD&D1e RAW and I'd rather go with GURPS or HERO instead (RAW).

RAW and RAI overlap way too much for this to even be an issue IME.

I play Star Frontiers RAW.  Naturally, people sometimes do things outside of the scope of the adventure modules, and you improvise, but I still try to use the rules to apply the situations, in such cases.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 04, 2025, 04:34:59 PMI understand Gygax didn't play his own game RAW so why should anyone else?

Yep.  He even said so in the DMG.  Does that make rule 0 one of the rules-as-written?

You cannot view this attachment.

Controversial hot-take incoming

you can not play AD&D (1e) RAW. There are vague rules that were never fully explained, typos, and contradictions in the DMG and PHB.

I spoke with Gary about this many years ago, and he openly admitted it to me and others. The weapon-speed rules are a prime example. Another issue was the initiative system which is unclear in the DMG

my old-school cred takes a hit when I say that (as I did on my YT videos on the subject), but so be it. Anyone who claims the old system is 100% consistent and codified is wrong.

For instance: I have claimed for many years that:
1. The winning side in the opposing D6 initiative roll starts actions on the losing side's d6 roll (side A wins initiative with a 5, side B rolls a 3: side A will act on segment 3 of the combat round).
2. Spells do NOT start on segment 1, they begin on the starting segment. In the example above, if side A wants to cast a fireball, it goes off on segment 6 of that round.

Lots of people argued with me on this until I produced blog and forum posts from EGG himself before he died, indicating that the above is the correct procedure.

he also said that the Magic User only loses his DEX AC bonus on the segments in which he is not casting the spell. In the above example, he would get his bonus on segments 1-2 of that round, and on segments 7-10.

the DMG is NOT clear on this, although it suggests all of this. There is no RAW reading.

As for later editions, such as 2e, much closer adherence to the written rule is possible. But there will be scenarios in which a ruling needs to be made in absence of a clear rule within the text.

As long as you state which rules you are using up-front as a GM, you will be fine.

Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on February 05, 2025, 06:13:34 PMmy old-school cred takes a hit when I say that (as I did on my YT videos on the subject), but so be it. Anyone who claims the old system is 100% consistent and codified is wrong.

I think someone's old school cred goes up a notch when they admit that Gary wasn't an omnicient demigod and AD&D had some serious jank. (I like a lot of jank games. I play Rifts fer gawdsake)

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 05, 2025, 06:27:18 PM

Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on February 05, 2025, 06:13:34 PMmy old-school cred takes a hit when I say that (as I did on my YT videos on the subject), but so be it. Anyone who claims the old system is 100% consistent and codified is wrong.

I think someone's old school cred goes up a notch when they admit that Gary wasn't an omnicient demigod and AD&D had some serious jank. (I like a lot of jank games. I play Rifts fer gawdsake)

true story lol. I love AD&D and have played in countless times since 1980

but it has a lot of issues--stuff we had to work around, and that was fine.

Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on February 05, 2025, 06:13:34 PMControversial hot-take incoming

you can not play AD&D (1e) RAW.

With the exception of BrOSR enthusiasts, I don't really see anyone claiming that AD&D 1e can be played RAW.  It's incomplete, and core elements are contradictory.  A DM must make choices and fill in gaps, bare minimum, and those are not small gaps or insignificant choices.  Choosing how you will run initiative will almost assuredly result in a non-RAW choice, as RAW is either not good (see ADDICT.PDF) or not understandable.

For a more controversial take, try pointing out that 5ed cannot be played RAW!

I had a post yesterday (eaten by the forum, or did I not press post?) that addressed OP's main point- that RAW does exist, and can be done, and often IS done in miniatures games, some of which have campaigns attached (this is how TTRPGs began, so this is no small point).  I will also point out that if the things you must adjudicate yourself are somewhat uncommon and not an omnipresent part of the main defined minigames (combat, economy, exploration, etc.), then you could make the case that that RAW exists for those games, especially if it is honest about the need of the DM to fill in these spaces.

If I make a dual wield guy and you have decided that dual wielding is cheesy and overpowered in the rules and as such I can never attack with the second weapon, that's the kind of RAW-violation that gets the forum kids riled up.  In this example I did something that works by the book and importantly is expected to work (this isn't "dip warlock for infinite sorcerer spells" or whatever 5e by-the-book-bullshit-exploit would make a good point here), and you're saying it can't, so it's kinda weird. 

What should be the expectations of the player in your world?  Well, if you wrote them down, isn't that RAW for your game?  It's by-the-handout at least then right?

Anyway, RAW exists, but I think the culture of expecting it to be played at a table is weird and unnatural.  The biggest benefit of having a book to be by in the first place is that people can talk about without having to have shared something else beforehand, so you could discuss it on a forum or with a stranger, not to pedantically ensure homogeneity in the playspace.

QuoteFor instance: I have claimed for many years that:
1. The winning side in the opposing D6 initiative roll starts actions on the losing side's d6 roll (side A wins initiative with a 5, side B rolls a 3: side A will act on segment 3 of the combat round).
2. Spells do NOT start on segment 1, they begin on the starting segment. In the example above, if side A wants to cast a fireball, it goes off on segment 6 of that round.

Lots of people argued with me on this until I produced blog and forum posts from EGG himself before he died, indicating that the above is the correct procedure.

Are we talking about how EGG ran it, a good way to do it, or how it is written in the book?  If you want to win an argument about RAW, you need only cite the line in the book that states it.  Your post at this point goes on to disagree with ADDICT.PDF on these points, and frankly, I think you're wrong too.  By the book, of course- ADDICT.PDF was never based on what Gygax did or said, it was based on what was actually published as official rules.

You can't contribute to a RAW discussion by quoting a designer.  5e forum people have an even worse problem here; they quote Crawford, who, unlike Gygax, is often flat fucking wrong about his claims (if Gygax told you how initiative was run, he's sharing history and a method to play the game it was played, not disagreeing with the PHB and DMG, which, as I stated, I suspect prove you wrong about the rules as written- whereas if Crawford is telling you that see invisible doesn't let you see an invisible creature, he's just fucking incorrect about RAW and is probably trying to drive engagement about his product).

Quotehe also said that the Magic User only loses his DEX AC bonus on the segments in which he is not casting the spell. In the above example, he would get his bonus on segments 1-2 of that round, and on segments 7-10.

Do you mean the segments where he IS casting the spell then?

Anyway, maybe you should write a document that explains how initiative works, and simply point out that it's about how Gygax talked about it and ran it back then or whatever, instead of allowing the implication that these decades-later transferred facts are somehow RAW.

QuoteAs long as you state which rules you are using up-front as a GM, you will be fine.

Agree, but I'll add that it's hard to really list all the things that a player might care about ahead of time.  Any effort at all will be huge though.

Quote from: Venka on February 05, 2025, 07:12:33 PM

Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on February 05, 2025, 06:13:34 PMControversial hot-take incoming

you can not play AD&D (1e) RAW.

With the exception of BrOSR enthusiasts, I don't really see anyone claiming that AD&D 1e can be played RAW.  It's incomplete, and core elements are contradictory.  A DM must make choices and fill in gaps, bare minimum, and those are not small gaps or insignificant choices.  Choosing how you will run initiative will almost assuredly result in a non-RAW choice, as RAW is either not good (see ADDICT.PDF) or not understandable.

For a more controversial take, try pointing out that 5ed cannot be played RAW!

I had a post yesterday (eaten by the forum, or did I not press post?) that addressed OP's main point- that RAW does exist, and can be done, and often IS done in miniatures games, some of which have campaigns attached (this is how TTRPGs began, so this is no small point).  I will also point out that if the things you must adjudicate yourself are somewhat uncommon and not an omnipresent part of the main defined minigames (combat, economy, exploration, etc.), then you could make the case that that RAW exists for those games, especially if it is honest about the need of the DM to fill in these spaces.

If I make a dual wield guy and you have decided that dual wielding is cheesy and overpowered in the rules and as such I can never attack with the second weapon, that's the kind of RAW-violation that gets the forum kids riled up.  In this example I did something that works by the book and importantly is expected to work (this isn't "dip warlock for infinite sorcerer spells" or whatever 5e by-the-book-bullshit-exploit would make a good point here), and you're saying it can't, so it's kinda weird. 

What should be the expectations of the player in your world?  Well, if you wrote them down, isn't that RAW for your game?  It's by-the-handout at least then right?

Anyway, RAW exists, but I think the culture of expecting it to be played at a table is weird and unnatural.  The biggest benefit of having a book to be by in the first place is that people can talk about without having to have shared something else beforehand, so you could discuss it on a forum or with a stranger, not to pedantically ensure homogeneity in the playspace.

QuoteFor instance: I have claimed for many years that:
1. The winning side in the opposing D6 initiative roll starts actions on the losing side's d6 roll (side A wins initiative with a 5, side B rolls a 3: side A will act on segment 3 of the combat round).
2. Spells do NOT start on segment 1, they begin on the starting segment. In the example above, if side A wants to cast a fireball, it goes off on segment 6 of that round.

Lots of people argued with me on this until I produced blog and forum posts from EGG himself before he died, indicating that the above is the correct procedure.

Are we talking about how EGG ran it, a good way to do it, or how it is written in the book?  If you want to win an argument about RAW, you need only cite the line in the book that states it.  Your post at this point goes on to disagree with ADDICT.PDF on these points, and frankly, I think you're wrong too.  By the book, of course- ADDICT.PDF was never based on what Gygax did or said, it was based on what was actually published as official rules.

You can't contribute to a RAW discussion by quoting a designer.  5e forum people have an even worse problem here; they quote Crawford, who, unlike Gygax, is often flat fucking wrong about his claims (if Gygax told you how initiative was run, he's sharing history and a method to play the game it was played, not disagreeing with the PHB and DMG, which, as I stated, I suspect prove you wrong about the rules as written- whereas if Crawford is telling you that see invisible doesn't let you see an invisible creature, he's just fucking incorrect about RAW and is probably trying to drive engagement about his product).

Quotehe also said that the Magic User only loses his DEX AC bonus on the segments in which he is not casting the spell. In the above example, he would get his bonus on segments 1-2 of that round, and on segments 7-10.

Do you mean the segments where he IS casting the spell then?

Anyway, maybe you should write a document that explains how initiative works, and simply point out that it's about how Gygax talked about it and ran it back then or whatever, instead of allowing the implication that these decades-later transferred facts are somehow RAW.

QuoteAs long as you state which rules you are using up-front as a GM, you will be fine.

Agree, but I'll add that it's hard to really list all the things that a player might care about ahead of time.  Any effort at all will be huge though.

The ADDICT document is different from how EGG stated the rules (after the DMG came out), especially in regards to thing like initiative.

The OSRIC rules are more consistent with EGG's statements

but OSRIC does away with weapon speed. And the issue of weapon speed in regards to starting segment is still unclear in all revisions and even in EGG's later writings.

I tackle the problem here, and put forth my own solution, but it would be a kind of house-rule based on implied rules and the math of AD&D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hkem6QkXwI&t=755s

I _really_ liked initiative with segments in AD&D.  The game lost a lot of tactical depth when those were done away with.

Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on February 05, 2025, 06:13:34 PMControversial hot-take incoming

you can not play AD&D (1e) RAW. *NomNomNomNom*

That's not a hot take. That's simple REALITY. And the only dissenters are those BrOsr weirdos.

Fun Fact: Before TSR took over the world, Gary Gygax once worked for an insurance company. Accidental Death & Dismemberment is a type of insurance coverage.

"AD&D"

Of course this thread has devolved into AD&D initiative...but in record time.

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2025, 10:07:41 PMOf course this thread has devolved into AD&D initiative...but in record time.

I mean we could go down the rabbit hole with 3e bonus attacks, free actions, etc. too lol

or get esoteric and delve into some of the MERPs rules

How many people actually play D&D RAW, without fail?

I admit that B/X D&D, Holmes D&D, and OD&D rewrites like White Box, etc. are more easily approachable RAW; than 1E or 2e AD&D are.

There's only so much content you can remember, at the table.

Then there was a ton of content for 3e / 3.5e, and every book contained more splat.

5e is also a pretty big bowl of soup, itself.

Who can remember all those dang possibilities?

There are alternative ways to do this stuff.

After playing a lot of miniature games over the years and board games I've realized RAW is pretty much not for me and has little to no place in RPG's outside perhaps convention games. Its too close to religion or law where you miss the point of the game which is usually to entertain the participants, most of us need structure to the game for them to be fun but the rules making sense and being playable is more important than authorial intent or what is actually written. Not to mention the fact that most modern RPG's have too many rules for there not to be an error now and then without breaking up the flow of the game to consult several hundred pages heavy tomes.

If something is really bad change it immidiatly, if something is a bit bad change it between session discuss with the players about why and how to change stuff. That has worked for me for about two decades now