This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Is there even such a thing as Rules As Written?

Started by Socratic-DM, February 04, 2025, 12:00:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Brad

Quote from: Man at Arms on February 06, 2025, 12:02:31 AMHow many people actually play D&D RAW, without fail?

I've been playing BECMI and AD&D since I was in junior high, and honestly I don't think I've ever done more than one complete session BtB, RAW. There was just so much extraneous crap to keep up with I almost had an aneurysm. When ADDICT was released, I was running a weekly AD&D game, so I thought it'd be cool to actually try running combat that way. So I did. It lasted exactly one combat and everyone hated me more than usual, scrapped instantly.

That said, I ran a Chivalry & Sorcery game for a few months RAW and it was almost impossible to do much of anything, although I will say the joust the PCs participated in was pretty cool. That was more of a mini-game, though, and would have been better to just play as only that instead of trying to shoehorn it into an RPG. I suppose the issue with the older RPGs is their wargamming roots are pretty obvious and if you ignore that you end up feeling like you're not using a lot of rules, but who cares? I think a 100% adherence to AD&D combat with all the bells and whistles is appropriate for the climax of a long campaign against Demogorgon or something because then the players won't feel gypped. Otherwise, fast and loose.
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.

Reckall

I think that when you learn a new RPG you should play RAW before changing anything. It is important to understand what the system does and why before pulling out the rule that keeps everything glued.

Also, it is amazing how many games have obvious holes in their systems. I played a one-shot with the new CoC 7E rules (which I generally like), RAW, and I discovered a big hole in the rules by the second session. Amazing.

Then, the rules are there to help me, not the other way around. Something fast should be fast. If the game has fourteen steps before one can swing a sword, I choose one - or, as often happens, I use a rule from a different system.
For every idiot who denounces Ayn Rand as "intellectualism" there is an excellent DM who creates a "Bioshock" adventure.

Steven Mitchell

I could play more RAW, or even RAI, than I do.  I choose not to, with no apologies. 

The closest I come to playing RAW is running my own system.  However, since it is unabashedly a work in progress, RAW is a moving target--a lagging one informed by how version X of a rule works.  And even part of that decision making is carving out places where certain things are intentionally left for the GM to decide.

estar

#33
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 04, 2025, 12:00:08 PMThe Real Question:

The nameless blog author mentioned above seemed to imply "Rules as Written" was simply known, explicit in what that meant, but if such were true then why are there rules lawyers and people who will endlessly debate them? I've personally been witness to debates where two players claimed to be follow a rule as written but had grossly different interpretations.

Without links I can only guess as to the posters intentions. However, in my experience I find folks debating RAW versus Rule Zero versus RAI are missing the point about tabletop RPGs.

Unlike boardgames like chess, monopoly, settlers of catan. Or wargames like Avalon Hill's Gettysburg or GDW's Europa. The point is to play a tabletop RPG campaign where the focus is on players pretending to be characters having adventures. Not playing a game with a specific set of rules with the goal of achieving some victory conditions.

The point of using a systems as part of a tabletop roleplaying campaign is found in the process that all tabletop RPG campaigns share. Namely

The referee describes the circumstances in which the players as their characters find themselves in.
The players describe what they do as their characters.
The referee adjudicates
At which point we jump back and repeat with the referee describing the circumstances. This loop is repeated throughout the session and the duration of a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

The system being used by the campaigns helps with the process of adjudication. Helps the players describe what they do as their characters. It helps the referee describe the circumstances. However it is an aide, the system doesn't define what circumstances could exist, how they can be described, or what the players could do as their character. Instead that is defined by how the characters are described and the setting of the campaign.

The implication is that if the player describe something that is reasonable for their character to attempt but the rules don't cover it then the referee will need to make a ruling.

Having said this there are several things outside of this that are important to a group of folks in a RPG campaign.

1) Playing tabletop RPGs is a hobby that is meant to be enjoyable. Part of that enjoyments comes from the system being used. So it worthwhile to figure out what system the group would like to use as it would make that much more fun and enjoyable. And that enjoyment will include liking a RPG for its qualities as a game which is OK as far whether using System A over System B. As long it is realized that at the end of the point of the whole exercise is pretending to be characters having interesting adventures.

2) Since the system is supposed to help with descriptions and adjudication if it so happens that players and referees have to keep coming up with their own rulings and descriptions then it is a reasonable question to ask whether that system is the right fit for that campaign using that particular setting.

3) RPG products may have a description of a setting to use for a campaign in addition to describing a setting. The system and setting may be tightly woven together. But the fact both are in one book doesn't mean the setting description sections are rules compared to the sections describing the system being used.



Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 04, 2025, 12:00:08 PMIn those cases it seems GM fiat, which is to say "Guessing as to the intent of the rule"  or RAI (Rules as intended) is somewhat implicit to any RAW position? though I suspect someone who was a RAW advocate would disagree.
The answer becomes a lot clearer if those debating would take a step back and look at the bigger picture of why tabletop roleplaying exists in the first place. And it helps to look at the context in which a tabletop roleplaying campaign is run.

For example organized play has different considerations than playing at home.

As for my view on RAW, my view is that if players are prevented from attempting something that is reasonable for their character to do because the referee can't find a specific mechanic in the system. Then the campaign is not being played RAW. For example, a fighter or magic-user in AD&D 1e with decent dexterity and ideal conditions (night time) attempting to sneak around a guard.

HappyDaze

For me, RAW is very real, but that mainly comes in when I'm doing proofreading and playtesting of products. At my home tables, when I run these games, I usually play close to RAW, but my familiarity with the RAW lets me know when it might be best to deviate from it.

Venka

Quote from: estar on February 06, 2025, 10:42:43 AMFor example, a fighter or magic-user in AD&D 1e with decent dexterity and ideal conditions (night time) attempting to sneak around a guard.

I agree with your point, but this particular example is an edge case that touches on another thing specifically, wherein the inclusion of a thief with the power to hide in shadows is read by some players to imply that no one else can hide or sneak at all.  The chance of the thief to succeed at these tricks is normally low at low levels, and the intended implication seems to be that everyone can sneak around, even thieves that fail their hide-in-shadows, just that the thief has this small chance to be totally hidden.  Once 3.0 hit everyone was rolling hide and move-silent checks, just now the thief was better at it.

But lets say your PCs are up against a bad guy that keeps hurling energy darts from some magical thing on his belt.  The PCs, thinking thematically, want to get some kind of hold on that device, either taking it or grabbing it so he can't keep using it.  RAW the game may have a way to do this, or it may be something entirely under DM purview with little or no guidance.  It would be hard to imagine a TTRPG where there's no explicit way to do this AND ALSO this means that it is impossible in the game world being described.

Another thought I had though, from earlier, when initiative got brought up- I think one of the drama points about RAW comes down to the idea that one version of the game is "more pure" than the other.  If I make a case that some bad procedure is RAW- that playing by-the-book results in a stupid or unfun process- then I can be perceived as "attacking the game" or even arguing that anyone who wants the "real" experience will play it RAW.  "Developer Intent" is another one of these, where someone who has researched how the game was intended (or actually) played can be viewed in a hostile manner for making these points.

And of course the reason why some people view these statements in these ways is because some commenters really do mean them that way.  The guy who argues that his 5.0 warlock bullshit works RAW, or takes a top-metagame build (like https://tabletopbuilds.com/umbral-stalker-gloom-stalker-ranger/ ), is using RAW because he understands it as a set of rules that good tables follow, and he either optimized something himself or grabbed an existing one and wants to run it.  If the table doesn't run it, it's not a RAW table, and it's defective in some way. 
Similarly, the guy that argues that his interpretation of some version of an actual old school product is correct or more official (for whatever reason) is engaging in a very different discussion than people who are arguing over the wording in an old book- he's making a value judgment, not a note about what's written versus other things.

I also don't think that the existence of an argument about RAW means that it isn't a good concept.  In 5e, like most versions of D&D, there's a nondetection spell.  It has this text:
QuoteFor the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic. The target can be a willing creature or a place or an object no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.
At some point during 5.0's life, Crawford was asked if this spell, combined with invisibility, protected the user from the true sight spell.  He said:
QuoteThe nondetection spell hides you from divination magic. True seeing is a divination spell.
This means that according to a 5.0 developer, who is referencing the wording on the spell, you can't see an invisible guy with true seeing or see invisibility, as long as they have this spell on them.  Older versions of the game had extremely similar wording, but they had tags or other explicit rules that didn't allow this shenanigan to be argued.

Crawford is making a RAW argument- he's arguing that the first clause is a universal clause so broad as to cancel everything, even self-buffs that grant powers to the user, as long as a divination spell is somewhere in the chain.  Does the fact that Crawford can make this bad argument mean that RAW isn't a good concept?  I don't think so.  I think this type of rules lawyering, where a descriptor is interpreted in its most extreme form, shouldn't be taken too seriously, or considered as a serious downside of the more conversation nature of games that write rules in mostly-normal English.

estar

Quote from: Venka on February 06, 2025, 12:41:00 PMI agree with your point,
Thanks

Quote from: Venka on February 06, 2025, 12:41:00 PMbut this particular example is an edge case that touches on another thing specifically, wherein the inclusion of a thief with the power to hide in shadows is read by some players to imply that no one else can hide or sneak at all. 

My view the problem is that the 3 LBBs OD&D were written with a specific audience in mind and as a result Gygax felt he didn't to explain some of what he did as he could rely on his audience own experiences with refereeing wargames.

But OD&D expanded in a short amount to hobbyist who didn't have the experience that miniature wargamers of the late 60s and early 70s thus leading to your example among others.

I don't blame Gygax for this, there was no way in 1973 he could have known that D&D would have been as successful as it turned out to be. A successful game among wargamers sure.

However, I do think his staff missed an opportunity to fix things later like with the Holmes Basic D&D. But there again they were overwhelmed by TSR sudden success and the obvious way forward to them was the easiest. More rules, more supplements followed by a reorganization and rewrite resulting in AD&D 1e.


Quote from: Venka on February 06, 2025, 12:41:00 PMOnce 3.0 hit everyone was rolling hide and move-silent checks, just now the thief was better at it.
Yup and the approach I took with my Majestic Fantasy RPG.

Quote from: Venka on February 06, 2025, 12:41:00 PMAND ALSO this means that it is impossible in the game world being described.
This only true if the referee adopts the attitude that the system is synonymous with the description of the setting. One if my points that it is not. It not how early campaigns were run prior to D&D was released especially Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. Instead, the setting and characters were described independent of the system.

Quote from: Venka on February 06, 2025, 12:41:00 PMAnother thought I had though, from earlier, when initiative got brought up- I think one of the drama points about RAW comes down to the idea that one version of the game is "more pure" than the other.  If I make a case that some bad procedure is RAW- that playing by-the-book results in a stupid or unfun process- then I can be perceived as "attacking the game" or even arguing that anyone who wants the "real" experience will play it RAW.
I find resting my counterpoints on "unfun" or stupid not working out. What unfun or stupid to me is somebody else's fun and smart way of doing thing.

So I what do instead is point out that the goal here is pretending to be characters having adventures. That given the setting that being talked about, given the characters we are talking about, that it makes they can do X, Y, and Z. (Like sneaking past a guard at night). Followed up by how the mechanics doesn't make sense in that context or is badly designed for what it is trying to adjudicate.

That shifts the debate from a subjective judgment to whether the system's design does the job it needs to, given the point of tabletop role-playing.

Eric Diaz

Of course there is such thing as RAW!

You usually cannot play a game 100% RAW, but you can refer to RAW when discussing both the overall trend of the table and some particular rule.

The fact that there are optional rules and omissions doesn't change that.

RAI and RAF (rules as fun) are also useful terms in such types of discussions. For example, letting a MU use swords with -4 (etc.) is not RAW or RAI in B/X, but for me it is fun.

For example, I think the OD&D and B/X cleric progression is a typo. RAW, you have to use it. RAI, we can discuss it, but it is ultimately up to the DM.

I am not a fan of RAW, particularly, but there are people that find using RAW keeps the DMs and players on the same page.

BTW: the DMG has some explicit "RAW" about fudging. E.g., ignore random encounters or treating 0 HP as unconsciousness, maiming, etc. I do not think fudging is RAW in other circumstances. But Mentzer's Red Box condones fudging. Since I do'nt bother about RAW, I will avoid fudging because I don't like it, not because of the rules.
Chaos Factory Books  - Dark fantasy RPGs and more!

Methods & Madness - my  D&D 5e / Old School / Game design blog.

Eirikrautha

Quote from: estar on February 06, 2025, 10:42:43 AM
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 04, 2025, 12:00:08 PMThe Real Question:

The nameless blog author mentioned above seemed to imply "Rules as Written" was simply known, explicit in what that meant, but if such were true then why are there rules lawyers and people who will endlessly debate them? I've personally been witness to debates where two players claimed to be follow a rule as written but had grossly different interpretations.

Without links I can only guess as to the posters intentions. However, in my experience I find folks debating RAW versus Rule Zero versus RAI are missing the point about tabletop RPGs.

Unlike boardgames like chess, monopoly, settlers of catan. Or wargames like Avalon Hill's Gettysburg or GDW's Europa. The point is to play a tabletop RPG campaign where the focus is on players pretending to be characters having adventures. Not playing a game with a specific set of rules with the goal of achieving some victory conditions.

The point of using a systems as part of a tabletop roleplaying campaign is found in the process that all tabletop RPG campaigns share. Namely

The referee describes the circumstances in which the players as their characters find themselves in.
The players describe what they do as their characters.
The referee adjudicates
At which point we jump back and repeat with the referee describing the circumstances. This loop is repeated throughout the session and the duration of a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

The system being used by the campaigns helps with the process of adjudication. Helps the players describe what they do as their characters. It helps the referee describe the circumstances. However it is an aide, the system doesn't define what circumstances could exist, how they can be described, or what the players could do as their character. Instead that is defined by how the characters are described and the setting of the campaign.

The implication is that if the player describe something that is reasonable for their character to attempt but the rules don't cover it then the referee will need to make a ruling.

Having said this there are several things outside of this that are important to a group of folks in a RPG campaign.

1) Playing tabletop RPGs is a hobby that is meant to be enjoyable. Part of that enjoyments comes from the system being used. So it worthwhile to figure out what system the group would like to use as it would make that much more fun and enjoyable. And that enjoyment will include liking a RPG for its qualities as a game which is OK as far whether using System A over System B. As long it is realized that at the end of the point of the whole exercise is pretending to be characters having interesting adventures.

2) Since the system is supposed to help with descriptions and adjudication if it so happens that players and referees have to keep coming up with their own rulings and descriptions then it is a reasonable question to ask whether that system is the right fit for that campaign using that particular setting.

3) RPG products may have a description of a setting to use for a campaign in addition to describing a setting. The system and setting may be tightly woven together. But the fact both are in one book doesn't mean the setting description sections are rules compared to the sections describing the system being used.



Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 04, 2025, 12:00:08 PMIn those cases it seems GM fiat, which is to say "Guessing as to the intent of the rule"  or RAI (Rules as intended) is somewhat implicit to any RAW position? though I suspect someone who was a RAW advocate would disagree.
The answer becomes a lot clearer if those debating would take a step back and look at the bigger picture of why tabletop roleplaying exists in the first place. And it helps to look at the context in which a tabletop roleplaying campaign is run.

For example organized play has different considerations than playing at home.

As for my view on RAW, my view is that if players are prevented from attempting something that is reasonable for their character to do because the referee can't find a specific mechanic in the system. Then the campaign is not being played RAW. For example, a fighter or magic-user in AD&D 1e with decent dexterity and ideal conditions (night time) attempting to sneak around a guard.

First of all, quoted for truth!

Second, to expand on your first point about the RPG OODA Loop, by it's very nature, an RPG cannot have RAW.  The rules serve as a short-cut, a series of examples of how to adjudicate the decisions made by the players.  There is no set of rules that can predict every player choice.  So, there is no RAW, because you will always have to adjudicate beyond the rules.  What most people seem to be referring to by RAW is actually fidelity to the written rules for adjudicating similar situations.  Even then, it is a matter of judgment as to which situations fit into the rules sometimes.  So, I actually think that RAW is not possible in an RPG.
"Testosterone levels vary widely among women, just like other secondary sex characteristics like breast size or body hair. If you eliminate anyone with elevated testosterone, it's like eliminating athletes because their boobs aren't big enough or because they're too hairy." -- jhkim

estar

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 06, 2025, 05:45:52 PMFirst of all, quoted for truth!

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 06, 2025, 05:45:52 PMSecond, to expand on your first point about the RPG OODA Loop, by it's very nature, an RPG cannot have RAW.  The rules serve as a short-cut, a series of examples of how to adjudicate the decisions made by the players.  There is no set of rules that can predict every player choice.  So, there is no RAW, because you will always have to adjudicate beyond the rules. 
Here is where I get to say quoted for truth. :-) One of the things that sets tabletop roleplaying apart from other forms of gaming or even roleplaying like CRPGs is the flexibility you get by using a human referee.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 06, 2025, 05:45:52 PMSo, I actually think that RAW is not possible in an RPG.
I am going to disagree in part, RAW is possible, but there are consequences. Namely the resulting campaign will not feel much different than a sophisticated wargaming campaign. Wargaming campaigns can be fun if that the goal in the first place. But tabletop RPGs shine when the focus on players pretending to be characters in some imagined setting with all the flexibility that implies. A flexibility that I feel happens because of the use of the human referee in the manner I previously described, the OODA loop.

I know that my view is not commonly held among folks in the hobby and industry. The main difference is my focus on the describe, adjudicate loop, where the ultimate reference on what a character can do is found in the description of the setting, not in the game mechanics used as an aide.

For example if the setting is a medieval world with some fantasy elements the range of characters and what they can do will X, Y, and Z. But if your setting is instead the world of four-color superhero comic then range of characters and what they can do will be different. So, the referee in both cases will be adjudicating differently, the circumstances will be described differently, and the players will have a different range of things they can do as their characters. Of course, there could be some overlap as both settings involve human beings doing things that human beings can do alongside the unique and fantastic elements each setting has.