Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 95
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Easy_Lee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    A lot of discussions use the terms house rule and ruling. Sage advice gets thrown around on these forums as well, sometimes listed under either heading. We've had a few arguments, often off-topic, over which term applies in a given situation. It's clear there is a problem.

    RAW and RAI don't seem to cut it, since people use these terms even in situations where they don't apply. For example, someone might say that RAW athletics doesn't apply to anything not listed under athletics, when in reality that would be a DM ruling because it isn't specified. Similarly, RAI is often mistaken for RAW in cases where the rules are unclear but a sage ruling exists.

    This thread should spark a discussion that, I hope, will clear the air.

    I'll start with a definition of terms, from web research:
    • Rule: RAW including errata, limited exclusively to what is written in the updated books.
    • House Rule: a rule applying only in a certain location, or at a certain table. This definition is general and applies outside D&D.
    • Ruling: rule arbitration, meaning interpretation of the existing rules. 4e contrasted this with house rules, implying that rulings and house rules are not the same.
    • Sage advice: a combination of rulings and rules clarifications from WotC staff.

    Some sage advice is plain rules, meaning that a DM is creating house rules if they don't follow it. Example: the Dueling fighting style works even if you have a shield in the second hand. A DM ruling differently would be house ruling.

    Some sage advice is rulings. Example: Great Weapon Fighting Style only lets you reroll 1's and 2's on the weapon die, not all dice related to the attack.

    So, what is the difference between a ruling and a house rule?

    If the DM interprets a rule a certain way but doesn't change it, that's a ruling. Example: a DM gives an improvised weapon the same attributes as the weapon it most closely resembles, such as treating a pitchfork as an improvised spear.

    If a DM rules on something that the listed rules don't specify, that's also a ruling. Example: what do I roll, if anything, to swing from a chandeli-hi-hier?

    If the DM makes a rule that contradicts an existing rule, that's a house rule. Example: a DM allows the Dueling fighting style to apply to versatile weapons used with two hands.

    What does sage advice have to do with anything?

    Some sage advice includes references to rules that answer questions unambiguously: these are rules. Some sage advice says how the sage would rule a situation, or says what is intended to happen: these are rulings.

    But are sage rulings the same as regular rules?

    Since they come from the official source, sage rulings are also RAI. We might call sage rulings intended rulings.

    In conclusion, I think we should use the following terms
    • Rule for RAW
    • House rule only for contradictions to RAW
    • Ruling for DM fiat / ask your DM situations
    • Intended ruling Official Ruling for RAI / Sage Advice


    What does the playground think?
    Last edited by Easy_Lee; 2017-08-10 at 02:26 PM. Reason: Change term: intended to official ruling

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    I'd like to point out that before the internet, the Dragon Magazine ran a sage advice column that took in player and DM questions and answered them. The general theme was to better clarify rules and edge cases.

    There was one I remember that was answered by a dev that called the column "rules you can use" in that he said right out "these answers are official" but I am sorry that I can't find the file that I think that e-version is in, and my box of old Dragon Mag articles does not have that article in it.

    (I never needed Sage Advice as a point of reference, since I didn't worry too much about rules lawyering: it wasn't a thing at my tables, and we had fun. Any rule thing was "what about this?" got a quick ruling then we play on. We afterwards often discussed details and maybe changed htings After Play was done. )
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2017-08-10 at 11:24 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Back in the day, when these terms were first invented, this was the terminology

    RAW
    Rules as written
    • what is written in the books
    • what is written in the errata's

    if it's not written, then it's not part of RAW

    RAI
    Rules as intended
    • Rules as written, overwritten by
    • Comments of the developers (as they can clarify what they intended), and
    • Sage advice, as this is the official channel on how the rules "should" (or are intended to) be used


    RAIT / RAIIT
    Rules as I Interprete them
    • your own personal interpretation of the rules
    • anything that is not explictly mentioned in RAW & commented on by devs/sage advice.
    • RAIIT can't contradict RAW/RAI
    • a term less useful for players, and more for DMs, as, at the end of the debate, it's still the DM's interpretation that counts.


    RAITAYCPIWN
    Rules as I interprete them and you can't prove I'm wrong, nya.
    • "the not quite catchy acronym" as it was refered to by the person who coined it.
    • A term used in TO (Theoretical Optimalisation), noting the idea that everything is allowed (even if any sane DM would forbid it), as long as it's not contradicted by the rules (hence, only usable in Theoretical Optimalisation)


    Houserule / Rule zero
    Whatever you want - even if it contradicts RAW/RAI.

    RAF
    A special mention to RAF, which isn't as old as the others, but still sometimes refered to;
    Rules As Fun
    • Added Houserules to increase the fun at the table.
    Last edited by qube; 2017-08-10 at 11:21 AM.
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.

    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Millstone85's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    RAIIT can't contradict RAW/RAI
    Recent discussions have shown that we are now in the age of the death of the author. Sage Advice can provide us with one developer's interpretation of the rules, and that is just their RAIIT which doesn't hold any more weight than a DM's RAIIT. The RAW can only be quoted and the RAI remains inaccessible, looking down on us all from the heavens.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Easy_Lee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    I think the main point of contention is whether a ruling that contradicts RAI is a house rule, or more accurately a house ruling. Calling it that implies that it isn't the normal ruling, which in turn implies that RAI is the normal ruling.

    But this also hinges on people knowing the RAI. In cases where RAI isn't stated, I think a lot of us tend to assume we know more than we do about WotC's intent.
    Last edited by Easy_Lee; 2017-08-10 at 11:35 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Millstone85 View Post
    Recent discussions have shown that we are now in the age of the death of the author. Sage Advice can provide us with one developer's interpretation of the rules, and that is just their RAIIT which doesn't hold any more weight than a DM's RAIIT.
    That is your opinion, not an unassailable fact.
    The RAW can only be quoted and the RAI remains inaccessible, looking down on us all from the heavens.
    Not if you can read. We already know that you can use the internet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Millstone85's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    That is your opinion, not an unassailable fact.
    That's the spirit!

    There is my opinion, your opinion, some other member's opinion, Mike Mearls' opinion, Jeremy Crawford's opinion, and well that's all just, like, opinions, man.

    The reason I am not writing this in blue is because it could be the sad truth.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Millstone85 View Post
    Recent discussions have shown that we are now in the age of the death of the author.
    I humbly disagree. The argument that just because the John wrote 'beatle', dispite him afterwards explaining he meant the bandmember, we should consider the text means insect as well, is nonsense - and only made by people who presumed it meant insect first and would rather sell their soul then admit they might be wrong.

    When you chose to interprete the rules in contradiction to what you know the intent is of the rule, then what you're doing has as much value to a discussion as a house rule has.
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.

    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Millstone85 View Post
    That's the spirit!
    Well, we ought to have fun with this thread, since the "what's an attack" thread is ... well, I'll not go there. Hopefully this thread will be productive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Easy_Lee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    I humbly disagree. The argument that just because the John wrote 'beatle', dispite him afterwards explaining he meant the bandmember, we should consider the text means insect as well, is nonsense - and only made by people who presumed it meant insect first and would rather sell their soul then admit they might be wrong.

    When you chose to interprete the rules in contradiction to what you know the intent is of the rule, then what you're doing has as much value to a discussion as a house rule has.
    Death of the Author is a little more complex than that. It's the idea that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight in determining an interpretation of their writing. This is not to be confused with post-modernism, which holds that all interpretations of a thing are equally valid. Death of the Author doesn't even suggest infinite interpretations. It merely says the author doesn't get to decide the one true interpretation.

    It's a useful idea for literature, especially in critique and study. It's unclear whether it should apply to game rules. On the one hand, it allows more freedom. On the other, it can confuse players as every table is playing a different game. As most of you probably know, that last part bothers me, and is a big part of the reason why I wish 5e's rules were more consistent and clear.

    But we know for sure that WotC doesn't go unchallenged. Most tables I've played at don't perfectly follow every intended ruling or even every rule. From what I can tell, this seems to be the default.
    Breaking BM: Revised - an updated look at the beast-mounted halfling ranger based on the Revised Ranger: Beast Conclave.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Millstone85 View Post
    Recent discussions have shown that we are now in the age of the death of the author.
    The school of resentment thanks you.

    But this does bring up a good point. The word of Mearls or Crawford don't hold nearly the weight they once would. When clearly unbalanced things exist where the rules are clear, we feel we can do better.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Easy_Lee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcangel4774 View Post
    But this does bring up a good point. The word of Mearls or Crawford don't hold nearly the weight they once would. When clearly unbalanced things exist where the rules are clear, we feel we can do better.
    Now that's interesting. Do you suppose that, in trying so hard to balance 5e, WotC made the imbalanced bits stand out even more to players? Or is this just modern gaming culture? Or something else?
    Breaking BM: Revised - an updated look at the beast-mounted halfling ranger based on the Revised Ranger: Beast Conclave.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    It's a useful idea for literature, especially in critique and study. It's unclear whether it should apply to game rules. On the one hand, it allows more freedom.
    (You are free to chose not to follow the rules of course - but) considering the direct intent of specifiying and writing down the rules is not to have freedom*, you pretty much have your answer.

    *: When following the rules you don't chose which die you roll an attack roll with. The point of the rule is that you use a d20.


    But this does bring up a good point. The word of Mearls or Crawford don't hold nearly the weight they once would.
    And perhaps that the problem. All these terms are from an era when there was a problem, and the dev said X, that it was X.

    This new wave of "we know it better then the devs" might be edgy and all that - but in the end, it doesn't help discussions. When you got a question concernting something:
    • rules say X (RAW)
    • the dev says this is intended to mean X' (RAI)
    • there are still some unclarities to what the devs say, so I think this means X" (RAIT)
    • but in my games we do Y (homebrew)

    whatever you then decide for your game is up to you - but for a third party to argue that you shouldn't do X', or that X' somehow hold no weight, or only the same weight as any other oppinion in the matter, is nonsense.

    Why would RAW be more infallible then the people who wrote it?
    Last edited by qube; 2017-08-10 at 01:36 PM.
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.

    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Easy_Lee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    Why would RAW be more infallible then the people who wrote it?
    It's pragmatic. As we all know, keeping up with errata is difficult by itself. Keeping your book updated with errata (choose your method) is more difficult. Keeping up with sage advice is more difficult still. Keeping your book updated with errata and sage advice...well, I'm not sure that there's even one person out there who does this. I think you would need a binder.

    It's more convenient to adopt a RAW-only mindset, or RAW + errata. We either have the book in its original form, or we have some modifications but nothing too crazy. That's doable. Convenience is no minor thing.
    Last edited by Easy_Lee; 2017-08-10 at 01:43 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Not all of this terminology is very helpful.

    RAW is simply what is in the book, with errata. If you say "the RAW say X," X had better be a quote from one of those sources.

    This means that citing RAW is only useful in order to correct misconceptions about what the book actually says, or as evidence to support a particular interpretation of the rules. That interpretation is not RAW, though, no matter how closely it follows from RAW, and claiming that it is only causes confusion.

    The best practice is to simply cite your source, and drop the term "RAW" altogether. The RAW doesn't say X, PHB 164 says it.

    RAI or the Rules as Intended or Intended Rulings are even worse. Again, just cite your source. You don't need to call it anything other than what it is. If your interlocutor isn't interested in what Sage Advice has to say, you aren't going to change any minds with an acronym.

    The dividing line between a house rule and a ruling may be useful, depending on the table. Calling something a house rule is a clear signal that you are aware that it may contradict other sources, such as RAW or Sage Advice, and that, to the extent that the rule is negotiable, it should be negaotiated on terms other than those sources. Calling something a ruling implies that that citing RAW or Sage Advice might be pertinent to the discussion.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Easy_Lee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by smcmike View Post
    Calling something a house rule is a clear signal that you are aware that it may contradict other sources, such as RAW or Sage Advice, and that, to the extent that the rule is negotiable, it should be negaotiated on terms other than those sources. Calling something a ruling implies that that citing RAW or Sage Advice might be pertinent to the discussion.
    Inherent to your post is the assumption that any ruling that agrees with the text but disagrees with sage advice is a house ruling. Like I said earlier, I think that's the primary point of contention. That's why I proposed we use the term intended ruling to address this. RAI seems to have failed, as I see the term thrown around even when there has been no official ruling on the question.

    Actually, official ruling may be a better term.

    As far as including page numbers and direct sources, that's great when one has one's book handy. I usually post from mobile. It's hard enough for me just to format my posts.
    Last edited by Easy_Lee; 2017-08-10 at 02:01 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy_Lee View Post
    Inherent to your post is the assumption that any ruling that agrees with the text but disagrees with sage advice is a house ruling. Like I said earlier, I think that's the primary point of contention. That's why I proposed we use the term intended ruling to address this. RAI seems to have failed, as I see the term thrown around even when there has been no official ruling on the question.

    Actually, official ruling may be a better term.

    As far as including page numbers and direct sources, that's great when one has one's book handy. I usually post from mobile. It's hard enough for me just to format my posts.
    I was trying to focus on context. I don't think "house rule" or "ruling" have any inherent usefulness outside of specific contexts. If a DM says "this is my house rule" or "this is how I rule on this," that might give you different ideas of where he is coming from. These terms are less useful for forum discussions, I think, though I'd be happy to see an example where they are meaningful.

    If you don't have page numbers and direct sources available, you probably shouldn't cite RAW. You can just cite your understanding of the rules, or your memory of what a certain section says. "But the Sanctuary spell does X" seems better than "But RAW says X." You are giving a specific citation, and you aren't claiming to be directly quoting RAW, but rather paraphrasing what the spell does.

    Official ruling is a fine term, and provides some shorthand for various sources, I suppose.

    Ps yes, mobile formatting is a bear.
    Last edited by smcmike; 2017-08-10 at 02:33 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy_Lee View Post
    Now that's interesting. Do you suppose that, in trying so hard to balance 5e, WotC made the imbalanced bits stand out even more to players? Or is this just modern gaming culture? Or something else?
    I think they decided they can't have perfect balance so they decided to let the DM determine what is balanced for his game and who cares if it means having to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.

    Well, I care.

    But I rant again.



    But I am being serious.

    I can see the point in admitting you can't please everyone so let people please themselves. While I can admit it's not a complete failure since a lot people go rah rah over it, it's still not pleasing everyone bringing us full circle. Lack of rules consistency from game to game is a bother.
    Quote Originally Posted by Erit View Post
    "The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees. But no matter what covenant is struck or words exchanged, the DM is not the PCs."

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy_Lee View Post
    Or is this just modern gaming culture?
    It is a small but noisy subset of gaming culture as we know it today.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    ....who cares if it means having to relearn how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.
    You don't have to "relearn the game." You have to adapt to that table. Overstatement does not sell the point very well.

    We will not digress beyond this, however, so please carry on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy_Lee View Post
    Now that's interesting. Do you suppose that, in trying so hard to balance 5e, WotC made the imbalanced bits stand out even more to players? Or is this just modern gaming culture? Or something else?
    I think you nailed both parts of it. As more and more testing goes through, balance will be better, but imbalance will be more glaringly obvious. In this age where we "solved information", developers can test on the fly and fix everything as it goes (erata). This leads to an ever evolving meta in many gaming genres.

    Which ties in to a big part of the culture. Those of us who play a variety of styles of games expect the constant update and balancing, and in trying to get the upper hand, we are good at rooting it out. Theorycrafting and rules lawyering come from this trained eye. Tie this in with the combination of ready information and self importance in the modern generations, and anybody can be an "expert".

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy_Lee View Post
    This is not to be confused with post-modernism, which holds that all interpretations of a thing are equally valid. Death of the Author doesn't even suggest infinite interpretations. It merely says the author doesn't get to decide the one true interpretation.
    I'd debate that Barthes does embody a big portion of the post-modern. If I was to summarise it postmodern doesn't hold thay all truths are equally valid, but that truth itself is subjective. This subjectivity is a big portion in the Death of the Author, as what defines the "true interpretation" is the culture or society that views it, not the writer that wrote it. Shakespeare, for example, catered to the uneducated of his time, but his work is now celebrated as high literature.

    Sorry to go off topic, I just enjoy a good debate in literature.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    I think that except for RAW, it's all a pretty meaningless debate.

    I mean:
    • RAW is the clear and direct application of what the rule actually says.
    • RAI is the interpretation of what a rule's intent was when there is some ambiguity, based on the experiences and perspective of the interpreter
    • ERATTA: Is the new RAW, though a given table may not chose to implement the change at their table it is still the RAW
    • Sage Advice: An RAI interpretation released by one of the devs. This interpretation may not be the same one they would have had when the rule was written as people can process the same words differently at different times, and we've seen in the tweets that the devs don't always agree on RAI anyway.
    • Rulings: What the DM does in game, on the spot. While this should be based on RAW and RAI as currently understood, it's not the slave to them. The purpose of rulings is to increase the fun of the game by speeding things up (by reducing the need to look up rules or rule lawyer), and allowing for things that the rules do not adequately cover in a somewhat logical and cohesive way.



    That's my take anyway.
    I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    I hope this doesn't give offense, but this post highlights some of what I was talking about:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigreid View Post
    [*]RAW is the clear and direct application of what the rule actually says.
    By my definition, RAW is what the rule actually says, not an application of what the rule actually says, no matter how clear or direct. Clarity and directness are often debated, after all, and what is worse than someone claiming that their interpretation is RAW? Regardless, not a useful term - just cite the rule, and make your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigreid View Post
    [*]RAI is the interpretation of what a rule's intent was when there is some ambiguity, based on the experiences and perspective of the interpreter
    I don't see how this is better than "my interpretation," or "Crawford's interpretation," unless you mean to separate out interpretations not based upon authorial intent, which is difficult to do.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by smcmike View Post
    I hope this doesn't give offense, but this post highlights some of what I was talking about:



    By my definition, RAW is what the rule actually says, not an application of what the rule actually says, no matter how clear or direct. Clarity and directness are often debated, after all, and what is worse than someone claiming that their interpretation is RAW? Regardless, not a useful term - just cite the rule, and make your argument.



    I don't see how this is better than "my interpretation," or "Crawford's interpretation," unless you mean to separate out interpretations not based upon authorial intent, which is difficult to do.
    No offense taken.

    RAW is what the rule says yes, but the rule isn't really anything until it's used.

    RAI is all about interpretation. My point was that RAI is all about the best interpretation of what was intended by the interpreting party. After all, 5 years in it's unlikely that even the person who wrote a rule is 100% on exactly what they intended when the rule was initially written.
    I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    It is a small but noisy subset of gaming culture as we know it today.
    You don't have to "relearn the game." You have to adapt to that table. Overstatement does not sell the point very well.

    We will not digress beyond this, however, so please carry on.
    Does Great Weapon Style work on smites?
    Who determines what creatures are summoned?
    Can I identify a spell an enemy is casting? If so, how?
    Can I know the abilities of this creature I'm about to face? If so, how?

    These aren't minor quibbles of differences. They change how the game is played. They change how a player will create and grow his character.

    I should not have to ask every new DM I play with "What rules are we using this time?" "How does my class work?"
    Quote Originally Posted by Erit View Post
    "The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees. But no matter what covenant is struck or words exchanged, the DM is not the PCs."

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post

    I should not have to ask every new DM I play with "What rules are we using this time?"
    What's wrong with a session 0? That's the time for people to communicate both time and substance. It's also inevitable that there will be substantive differences in adjudication between tables unless the system is so locked down and predefined that a computer can run it. So just ask "I'm thinking of running a character like X. I plan to pick abilities like Y,Z, and W. What's your policy on those?" 99% of the abilities are non-controversial. It's both the players' and the DM's responsibility to communicate expectations and broad rulings.

    I'd even be willing to bet that most DMs don't really have an opinion on most of those topics you mentioned, and are willing to do whatever. So use your words and talk about it. In 3.X, you had to have much more in-depth conversations about that classes (and spells, feats, interpretations, etc) were allowed. Here, the character-build affecting rulings are pretty small in comparison.
    The Council Lands: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    What's wrong with a session 0? That's the time for people to communicate both time and substance. It's also inevitable that there will be substantive differences in adjudication between tables unless the system is so locked down and predefined that a computer can run it. So just ask "I'm thinking of running a character like X. I plan to pick abilities like Y,Z, and W. What's your policy on those?" 99% of the abilities are non-controversial. It's both the players' and the DM's responsibility to communicate expectations and broad rulings.

    I'd even be willing to bet that most DMs don't really have an opinion on most of those topics you mentioned, and are willing to do whatever. So use your words and talk about it. In 3.X, you had to have much more in-depth conversations about that classes (and spells, feats, interpretations, etc) were allowed. Here, the character-build affecting rulings are pretty small in comparison.
    Doesn't matter if it's done at Session 0. That's still relearning how to play the game to go over all the rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by Erit View Post
    "The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees. But no matter what covenant is struck or words exchanged, the DM is not the PCs."

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy_Lee View Post
    > Why would RAW be more infallible then the people who wrote it?

    It's pragmatic. As we all know, keeping up with errata is difficult by itself.
    yes, but that's hardly a reasoning why one can argue something in the lines of "I know the devs say it's not X but Y, but the wirtten rules say X, so it's gonna be X, not Y".

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigreid View Post
    RAI is all about interpretation. My point was that RAI is all about the best interpretation of what was intended by the interpreting party. After all, 5 years in it's unlikely that even the person who wrote a rule is 100% on exactly what they intended when the rule was initially written.
    RAI is all about intend, not interpretation. So what if the author is only 99.9% sure about what his original intent was? It's still far superior then any of us taking a stab in the dark.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex
    I should not have to ask every new DM I play with "What rules are we using this time?" "How does my class work?"
    Considering many DMs have their own little houserules, I don't really agree with your example. Even on a lower level, how can the DM know if you're one of those Screw-Sage-Advice-What-Do-They-Know people, or a RAW+RAI kind of person?

    However, you do make a solid point that the more clear the rules are, the better. (that a DM can clearly spot the line between rule & houserule and thus inform the player as such (not thinking something is a rule, so doesn't mention it; while the other person thought it worked differently)
    Last edited by qube; 2017-08-10 at 11:56 PM.
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.

    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to note: Death on the Author advocates it being better that everyone has their own personal interpretation of a text. This simply isn't true for rules.

    While it might be important that rules allow the ability to say "screw this rule, I'm gonna do it differently" - nobody benefits from a table where 5 people have 5 different interpretations.
    Yes, tabaxi grappler. It's a thing

    RFC1925: With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea.

    Alucard (TFS): I do things. I take very enthusiastic walks through the woods

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: House Rules, Rulings, and Sage Advice

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    Considering many DMs have their own little houserules, I don't really agree with your example. Even on a lower level, how can the DM know if you're one of those Screw-Sage-Advice-What-Do-They-Know people, or a RAW+RAI kind of person?
    House rules are not the same thing. House rules are deliberate changes to the established rules. You know what the rule is, but you want to change it to something else to suit your taste. I'm talking about trying to figure out what the established rules are in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post

    While it might be important that rules allow the ability to say "screw this rule, I'm gonna do it differently"
    The house rule.


    Quote Originally Posted by qube View Post
    nobody benefits from a table where 5 people have 5 different interpretations.
    Relearning how to play the game depending on who is DM that day.
    Last edited by Pex; 2017-08-11 at 07:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Erit View Post
    "The DM is the world, the gods, the trees and the bees. But no matter what covenant is struck or words exchanged, the DM is not the PCs."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •