Prelude:
Recently; via certain blog posts, I have stumbled upon this weird position held by some people that "Rule 0 gives license to fudge" which I found as an interesting take.
Now said author failed to define rule 0, or to bring up a concrete codified version of the concept, or definition, the author of this blog post warned his audience that we ought return to using the rules of our games as written, and that we should gatekeep out those who can't read the rules.
I do not inherently disagree with some of these takes, where I think a line was crossed as the author's implicit assumption that the game designer somehow ranked higher as an authority than the DM.
I find the hubris that a game designer believes they own a book post sale to be egregious, and that they have foreseen all possible problems or discrepancies; and thus have provided for such, I find dubious...
The 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.
In 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.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on February 04, 2025, 12:00:08 PMThe Real Question:
I was put onto to a mental track that I felt the need to ask and express, 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.
In those cases it seems GM fiat, which is to say "Guessing as to the intent of the rule" is somewhat implicit to any RAW position? though I suspect someone who was a RAW advocate.
I would say gamers will most likely argue over a rule if the rule is poorly written. Meaning: is the rule written in a clear and concise way? If not, then the rule has the potential of being interpreted in a way not intended by the game designer.
If there isn't an official errata on the rule, then it's up to the GM to make a ruling on behalf of his group to settle the issue, with consensus of the gaming group of course.
From there, if a situation comes up where the rule comes into play, there isn't any problem.
I've done this several times with my own group and I never had a problem.
Now, if we're talking about someone just plain doesn't like a certain rule (player or GM), that's a whole other thing.
In Ye Olden Dayse - we believed the written word of St. Gygax and St. Arneson was sacrosanct. This is generally true of all newb players.
But inevitably we realized the great Saints of D&D also were mere mortals. We'd see some opening where we didn't like a rule "WTF do you mean a Katana has the same stats as a Shortsword?!?!?!? They can cut through battleships!!" Or we came to believe we can add on to the established rules with our heartbreaking designs and make our game even better.
Rule-Zero is highly subjective to the GM at the table. GMing is, to me, a developmental skill that goes through various phases and has very common pitfalls. The vindicative GM that is playing against their players, or the Novelist Jerkoff Artist GM that is cramming their unpublished drivel down the throats of their players. Or the moderate GM's that simply are trying to run a fun game, and are passive and don't want to challenge their players vs. the hardcore GM who is all about setting-fidelity at the cost of repeated TPK's. All of them use Rule-Zero differently and for different reasons - and NONE of those reasons are equal in value.
At the core of it is a relationship that GM's need to develop with their players where the players TRUST the GM so that Rule Zero is light in touch and powerful in impact. Cultivating that trust in players is an often under-discussed tool of GMing. I find it absolutely indispensable. Without the ability to cultivate that trust, Rule Zero becomes this bullshit fiat for weak GM's to run games that are either inconsistent or invariably bad.
To extend tenbones's answer ...
The overall goal, as he said, it for the GM to be consistent and fair. The rules are a tool to that end. In a traditional RPG, that's all they are. They are a starting place, if you will, so that the GM doesn't need to make rulings on every little thing.
Nor is this some kind of bright line that gets crossed, either. Rules stretch from "firm" system rules to "loose" system rules to system guidelines to house rules for setting to house rules to address perceived deficiencies in the system rules to "merely" a written form of a ruling to better remember/share it with the players. And there is considerable overlap in some of those categories, too.
I think a better way for an experienced GM to view the matter is that some of the first rulings the GM makes when starting a new campaign is which system rules are operative. Of course, if the same ruling is going to go against the system, and come up a lot, it's probably better to state it as a house rule.
Finally, even given all those ways to approach it, a good campaign cannot have rules for everything. It's impossible. A good campaign allows the players to try anything feasible for their characters in that setting. A set of rules is an abstract model--even in the most hardcore simulation. All models have gaps, roughed off edges, simplifications, etc. That's part of what makes them good models, that you can get your heads around the abstraction and use that as an approximation that everyone at the table can understand. When the players act and the GM adjudicates, we are now in the realm of the specific.
the Rule 0 vs RAW "debate" never made much sense to me. rule 0 is RAW.
Also, this may be of interest: All models are wrong. Some are useful. (https://jamesclear.com/all-models-are-wrong)
Fantasy roleplay games are in a separate category from traditional games like chess or monopoly. In traditional games the rules are meant to be followed to the letter to make the game fair and because there's winners and losers. In RPGs the rules provide boundaries that need to be altered and made flexible according to the situation. The objective is not to win but something more abstract like goal setting or creative problem solving This can create a schism between those who bring a wargaming win/lose mentality and those who want a more free form exploration and role play experience
My opinion is that, the rules are important for a common framework to base your experience off of. Either the DM alone should be familiar with the rules framework and the players can just let the DM handle that stuff with a bare minimum of their own understanding of the rules, or more people can familiarize themselves with the rules to a degree where they can help the DM whenever there is a delay. I don't really know which way is best, I can see merit between the spectrum of "only the DM should know the rules well" to the other extreme of "all players should know the rules as well as the DM"
I don't know if this analogy ultimately makes sense, but you know how some movie directors want to "subvert expectations" of whatever genre the movie they're making? and then they can either end up making a good movie, or a bad movie? The ones who make a good movie end up having mastered the genre they are trying to subvert, they had to "learn the rules" in order to know how to effectively change/break them without ruining the movie experience. I think RPGs are kinda like that too. If the game is good/solid it will have a rules structure that just works, and if you want to house-rule or rules-zero it or play the game effectively without doing "rules as written" it greatly helps to have mastered an understanding of the rules as they were written in the first place to know what works, what doesn't, and how you can improve.
I can see examples existing where the might not be the case, and personally I'm less uptight about 'rules as written" than I used to be, but people almost always play chess "rules as written" or card games "rules as written", and just because an RPG has many more possibilities for player action and choices, doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to do "rules as written" when it makes sense. Of course if the game you're playing requires massive amounts of deviation from "rules as written" just to be played in in a fun way, maybe its just a badly written game.
Exactly.
I'm a very confident GM. I know what I'm aiming for in my games - each campaign is entirely different, even if they're in the same setting. My players have high-trust in me not because I know all the rules, or because I have some "story I'm trying to tell" (which I don't ever do). Rather they trust I'm going to deliver consistent performance in delivering more than our collective expectations.
And I do this because I *never* trust I have it all correct. The rules are never perfect. My take on the rules are never perfect enough (for me), my players think I know what is going on - but I tell them over and over again: my goal is to get the game where *I* have no idea wtf is going on because my job is to be totally invisible, I'm trying to let them drive everything and the rules are just the things we use to adjudicate how decisions play out with me playing the NPC's will all the gusto they play their PC's.
No model is perfect, it's totally true. I'm *constantly* re-examining rules (outside of the game) looking at other systems to see how they handle things, examining the abstractions of mechanics in what they're trying to emulate to determine whether it "feels right" despite my instincts which may say otherwise.
I trust nothing except my experience and my approach to a certain point which is about 90% certainty. Where that point ends, and will never be "complete", I question everything. I *need* the model to evolve because my views are always evolving.
Rules As Written - are a guide for those that are new to the hobby. And that's GOOD. Once you get deep into it, and start knowing what you want beyond those rules, you can and *should* transcend them as needed to get the performance you want in your game. The Rules are not the game itself.
I tend to stick as closely as I reasonably can to RAW during the game primarily because the players designed their characters and approached game-play using their knowledge of the rules as written. They picked the attributes, skills, and other class features with a certain expectation of how they would work in my campaign. If I suddenly rule that a fighter can take an extra swing just because it would be cool, or that Sleep doesn't work on the goblins just because, I've pretty much screwed over those who made decisions that I have now negated. Sticking to RAW - which is a set of expectations - is one way I keep their trust.
That said, agreeing beforehand to house rule some things (like how flanking works), is a different matter, since they can then make character decisions based on this new information.
RAW might work for the first few sessions before you see what's going on, then it's best discarded in the trash heap, so you can tailor the game to your personal preferences.
I understand Gygax didn't play his own game RAW so why should anyone else?
I was confused by this too. I saw The Basic Expert's video a week or so ago where he was making his argument for RAW, and he seemed to be arguing with a theoretical listener who believed that the options were "RAW" or "Fudge the dice and make everything up". I always assumed the dichotomy was "RAW or Homebrew". I'm an inveterate homebrewer and always will be, but I stand by my homebrew rules and try to apply them consistently.
Quote from: ForgottenF on February 04, 2025, 04:45:26 PMI was confused by this too. I saw The Basic Expert's video a week or so ago where he was making his argument for RAW, and he seemed to be arguing with a theoretical listener who believed that the options were "RAW" or "Fudge the dice and make everything up". I always assumed the dichotomy was "RAW or Homebrew". I'm an inveterate homebrewer and always will be, but I stand by my homebrew rules and try to apply them consistently.
Expert is where I first found this position held, I agree with him so far as warding against and gatekeeping those who refuse to read the rules, or those DMs that make arbitrary rulings, but you put a discerningly fine point to it. he argues against, and accuses his detractors of positions they do in fact not hold, he is quite good at poisoning the well.
I think that RAW can and does exist when game designers are clear and succinct and the rules aren't terribly ambitious. Whether or not you should pay attention to RAW? That's a whole 'nother can of worms.
I personally don't put a ton of stock in either RAW or RAI interpretations. The problem with RAW is that it isn't always explained clearly and that it quite often doesn't cover the specific situation players get themselves into. (Players are very good at finding a way to put themselves into a situation where the RAW does not work particularly well, and sometimes it doesn't work at all.)
The problem with RAI is that it expects the GM to be a mind-reader. And to a less extent, the designer's intentions are the beginning of the game, not the end. A group of experienced players can wind up being held back by the RAI.
This is why I tend to view RPGs as a creative handshake. The game designer provides the rules and setting backbone, but these shouldn't be considered "finished" products. Rather, they are seeds for the GM and player creativity to crystalize onto. The GM is supposed to fill in some of the material, and the players are supposed to fill in some material.
Exactly where the game designer should step back and let the GM take over and exactly where the GM should step back and let the players take over is not a one-size-fits-all decision. In fact I would say that this not only differs from group to group, but that two different campaigns played by the same group likely have different creative handshakes. Horror especially tends to disdain when players have significant input past their own characters.
So instead of saying I prefer RAI over RAW--which is technically true, but kinda misleading--I say that I prefer the game designer to focus entirely on designing the parts of the game the GM probably can't do for himself because of a skill or design specialization reason, and for the GM to focus on designing the parts of the game which the players shouldn't for metagame reasons. This isn't exactly RAW vs RAI; it's why I am going to defer to the RAW sometimes, use the RAI on occasion, and completely ignore both the RAW and RAI as often as possible.
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?
rule0.jpg
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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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"
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/5VKbvrjxpVJCM/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952cvxrjo2bbkh06nwdj0zg1zyyfnnh4cyme2xzum48&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: estar on February 06, 2025, 10:42:43 AMQuote 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.
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.