What is RAW? [Archive] - Wizards Community

What is RAW? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Chakaga
06-12-07, 12:47 PM I see that said a lot. What is it?
_Jayne_Cobb_
06-12-07, 12:51 PM It simply means "Rules As Written." It means one is speaking in terms of a common baseline of the rules as they appear in the books without house-ruling or interpretation.
Crimson_Concerto
06-12-07, 12:51 PM It's supposed to stand for "Rules As Written."
However, the context it's most commonly used in is more "Rules As I Interpret Them."
Chakaga
06-12-07, 12:56 PM Ok thank you, that makes some of these posts make a little more sense lol.
_Jayne_Cobb_
06-12-07, 12:56 PM It's supposed to stand for "Rules As Written."
However, the context it's most commonly used in is more "Rules As I Interpret Them."

Unfortunately, yes. Some people say RAW but they mean the opposite.

For example, some people claim "By the RAW a dead PC can get back up and fight" but nowhere in the rules anywhere does it say anything remotely like that. What the RAW doesn't say is "A dead PC cannot do anything" so these people choose to misinterpret this as allowing a dead PC to act and then claim it is RAW, failing to realize that just cos something is not explicitly disallowed does not mean it is implicitly allowed. So in this instance their claim that this is RAW is, in fact, precisely the opposite of RAW.

It all really comes from some people thinking RAW is some form of value judgment ("if it is RAW then it overrides all other options," for example) rather than a simple acronym used to indicate a common baseline of the rules as they appear in the book.
Kouk
06-12-07, 03:20 PM "As written" is actually pretty vague. Different people interpret even the written word in many different ways.

At the most extreme form, yes, you can say "If it is not in the rules, it does not exist". That is generally the minority however.
Kuronue
06-14-07, 04:28 AM tehnically wouldn't that be "rules as NOT written", as in, nothing is written to prevent it? hehe
Evil DM Mk3
06-14-07, 09:01 AM The correct use of RAW would be along the lines of "No acording to RAW you must use a mighty bow of the apropriate type to gain your whole strength to the damadge, you cannot use a dead vole."

Arguments that can be settled by genuine RAW are very rare.
goawayugh
06-14-07, 11:47 AM RAW: Rules As Whiners want them to be.

j/k
Mock26
06-14-07, 09:45 PM RAW: Radishes Are Wonderful!

RAW: Raquel "Awesome" Welch.

RAW: Really Awful Wednesdays.

RAW: Red Ant Warriors.
Bob Loblaw
06-14-07, 10:59 PM I have noticed that RAW applies to anything not in the first couple of chapters in the DMG as well.

I find it interesting that were refer to Rules As Written in a handbook and a guide. Neither one is set in stone and can be open to interpretation.
Mock26
06-15-07, 12:16 AM According to the RAW, the RAW is mutable, at the DM's discretion. I've always liked that.
pres_man
06-15-07, 01:39 AM On thing to note is that some people mix up RAW with Core. Core refers to the rules outlined in the three basic texts, the PHB, the DMG, and the MM (most of these rules are included in the SRD). RAW actually refers to any rules written in any text.

So by the Core rules you can't get a buckler's AC if you attack with your off-hand, by the RAW with Improved Buckler Defense (found in Complete Warrior, not a Core text) you can.
Leilond
06-15-07, 04:51 AM Rules As Written

This is a long term problem
When you write something you want to mean something
If you're not a "lawyer" (and the Wizard rule writers aren't) there the possibility that you write a phrase that can be understood (not "interpreted") in different ways. Also "real laws" are interpreted in different ways every now and then, and "Hight level law departement" (Supreme court for example) will "force" an interpretation that all "lower level law departement" (lawyer for example) MUST accept. It doesn't matter that the lawyer thinks that the law say something different, the lawyer must accept the supreme court decision

So, sometimes, it happens that a rule is written in a bad way and two groups of people read it and understand that it works in two different ways (or more)
Every now and then one user say "do not interpret, read the rule!". Sometimes that user is right, but sometimes that user do not recognize that he's interpreting too, because you cannot read something without giving a meaning to what you read

Let's make an example

"If you can't do this, you can't do that"

Can be undestood in two different ways
First way
"If you can't do this right now, yu can't do that right now"
Example
If you can't reach the apple, you can't eat the apple

Second way
"If you can't do this as general ability, you can't do this at all"
Example
"If you can't speak english, you can't undesrtand what I wrote"

This two phrases are simple, but think about this:

"If you can't read, you can't enter this club"

What's the meaning of "can't read"? Does it means that I must be able to read as a whole or it is required that I must be able to read right now? What if I forgot my glasses at home and I "cannot" read because of my poor eyes?
In this situation you must ASK to the club owner. He/she will clarify if it is required that you must be able to read right now (because it will appear written requirements on a screen in the club) or you must be able to read as general ability because they don't want illiterates in the club

This shows that a "rule" can be readed CORRECTLY in different ways. Both are RAW, but only one is the owner requirement, only one is "really correct"
Nom
06-15-07, 10:00 AM There's a legitimate use of "rules as written", that isn't nit-picking. It's used when someone wants to draw a distinction between "what the rules say" and "alternative (better) ways of doing it". As in "RAW X, but I recommend Y".

RAW is sometimes taken to mean "the literalistic reading of the rules". However, the correct distinction is between "what the rules say" (which admittedly might be ambiguous) and "what I think". It's the failure to separate these two categories that causes many of the disagreements.
Geogoose
06-15-07, 12:32 PM RAW - Rules as Written.

Use the rule as it is presented, complete and in context. Houserules often conflict with RAW, by design. A houserule is meant to modify or add to the RAW. Sometimes the Rules as Written have more than a single valid interpretation. Words aren't very specific, writers aren't lawyers, flavor text muddling up a rule, take your pick.

These message boards are a good source of discussions about which (RAW) interpretations are valid, which interpretations are easier to game with, or simply which ones are more fun or worth houseruling.

The term RAW isn't supposed to be a , "In your face I'm right!" statement in gamer code. Some people like to say, "By RAW such and such is preposterous!" in a sarcastic way to point out that the rulebooks are not 100% foolproof. While others like to drop a , "By RAW xxxx." to get some posters back on track after arguing rules they've mingled with housrules or misinterpretations.
Leilond
06-18-07, 03:06 AM There's a legitimate use of "rules as written", that isn't nit-picking. It's used when someone wants to draw a distinction between "what the rules say" and "alternative (better) ways of doing it". As in "RAW X, but I recommend Y".

RAW is sometimes taken to mean "the literalistic reading of the rules". However, the correct distinction is between "what the rules say" (which admittedly might be ambiguous) and "what I think". It's the failure to separate these two categories that causes many of the disagreements.
Sure. The problem is that some users "think" their interpretation is "RAW" and all other interpretations aren't. Sometimes they're right, but sometimes the rule is simply "ambiguous" and no RAW can be pointed uniquely
For this reason "by the RAW" is a phrase that must be used with "caution" and not like a "talisman of the rightness"
Phrennzy
06-18-07, 01:58 PM RAW is a condition caused by too much friction and not enough lubrication.

It has very little to do with D&D but quite a bit to do with B&D, S&M, and other similar 'games'.
darkeness
06-18-07, 03:21 PM RAW is a condition caused by too much friction and not enough lubrication.

It has very little to do with D&D but quite a bit to do with B&D, S&M, and other similar 'games'.

My, my... my wife was complaining about that just a bit ago (reminaing thoughts edited for the kidies) :D

Was that a bit much? Phrennzy started it! :P
JMKoontz
06-19-07, 07:13 PM RAW: Red Ant Warriors.

Formians? :mymy:
Mock26
06-19-07, 10:01 PM Formians? :mymy:
Yep! I bet you didn't know all those people quoting the RAW were actually formians here to take over the earth!
Eightbitmage
06-19-07, 10:20 PM What is RAW?

RAW is WAR!! On monday nights at 9 on USA.
weasel0
06-20-07, 10:02 AM Ready Any Weekday!!
Mock26
06-20-07, 01:59 PM Rabbits Are Wascally
Bedlamtom
06-20-07, 02:13 PM Am I the only one who thought...

Undercooked goblin?
weasel0
06-20-07, 06:14 PM Any kind of goblin... cooked or not.... uck!
Bedlamtom
06-20-07, 06:58 PM Any kind of goblin... cooked or not.... uck!

That's because the sacrid recipe book is mine and mine alone! I alone know how to turn leftover goblins into a tangy stew!
calronmoonflower
06-21-07, 02:55 AM Rules As Written

But allot of people seems to use it as

Rationize And Whine

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Chakaga 06-12-07, 12:47 PM	I see that said a lot. What is it?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 06-12-07, 12:51 PM	It simply means "Rules As Written." It means one is speaking in terms of a common baseline of the rules as they appear in the books without house-ruling or interpretation.
Crimson_Concerto 06-12-07, 12:51 PM	It's supposed to stand for "Rules As Written." However, the context it's most commonly used in is more "Rules As I Interpret Them."
Chakaga 06-12-07, 12:56 PM	Ok thank you, that makes some of these posts make a little more sense lol.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 06-12-07, 12:56 PM	It's supposed to stand for "Rules As Written." However, the context it's most commonly used in is more "Rules As I Interpret Them." Unfortunately, yes. Some people say RAW but they mean the opposite. For example, some people claim "By the RAW a dead PC can get back up and fight" but nowhere in the rules anywhere does it say anything remotely like that. What the RAW doesn't say is "A dead PC cannot do anything" so these people choose to misinterpret this as allowing a dead PC to act and then claim it is RAW, failing to realize that just cos something is not explicitly disallowed does not mean it is implicitly allowed. So in this instance their claim that this is RAW is, in fact, precisely the opposite of RAW. It all really comes from some people thinking RAW is some form of value judgment ("if it is RAW then it overrides all other options," for example) rather than a simple acronym used to indicate a common baseline of the rules as they appear in the book.
Kouk 06-12-07, 03:20 PM	"As written" is actually pretty vague. Different people interpret even the written word in many different ways. At the most extreme form, yes, you can say "If it is not in the rules, it does not exist". That is generally the minority however.
Kuronue 06-14-07, 04:28 AM	tehnically wouldn't that be "rules as NOT written", as in, nothing is written to prevent it? hehe
Evil DM Mk3 06-14-07, 09:01 AM	The correct use of RAW would be along the lines of "No acording to RAW you must use a mighty bow of the apropriate type to gain your whole strength to the damadge, you cannot use a dead vole." Arguments that can be settled by genuine RAW are very rare.
goawayugh 06-14-07, 11:47 AM	RAW: Rules As Whiners want them to be. j/k
Mock26 06-14-07, 09:45 PM	RAW: Radishes Are Wonderful! RAW: Raquel "Awesome" Welch. RAW: Really Awful Wednesdays. RAW: Red Ant Warriors.
Bob Loblaw 06-14-07, 10:59 PM	I have noticed that RAW applies to anything not in the first couple of chapters in the DMG as well. I find it interesting that were refer to Rules As Written in a handbook and a guide. Neither one is set in stone and can be open to interpretation.
Mock26 06-15-07, 12:16 AM	According to the RAW, the RAW is mutable, at the DM's discretion. I've always liked that.
pres_man 06-15-07, 01:39 AM	On thing to note is that some people mix up RAW with Core. Core refers to the rules outlined in the three basic texts, the PHB, the DMG, and the MM (most of these rules are included in the SRD). RAW actually refers to any rules written in any text. So by the Core rules you can't get a buckler's AC if you attack with your off-hand, by the RAW with Improved Buckler Defense (found in Complete Warrior, not a Core text) you can.
Leilond 06-15-07, 04:51 AM	Rules As Written This is a long term problem When you write something you want to mean something If you're not a "lawyer" (and the Wizard rule writers aren't) there the possibility that you write a phrase that can be understood (not "interpreted") in different ways. Also "real laws" are interpreted in different ways every now and then, and "Hight level law departement" (Supreme court for example) will "force" an interpretation that all "lower level law departement" (lawyer for example) MUST accept. It doesn't matter that the lawyer thinks that the law say something different, the lawyer must accept the supreme court decision So, sometimes, it happens that a rule is written in a bad way and two groups of people read it and understand that it works in two different ways (or more) Every now and then one user say "do not interpret, read the rule!". Sometimes that user is right, but sometimes that user do not recognize that he's interpreting too, because you cannot read something without giving a meaning to what you read Let's make an example "If you can't do this, you can't do that" Can be undestood in two different ways First way "If you can't do this right now, yu can't do that right now" Example If you can't reach the apple, you can't eat the apple Second way "If you can't do this as general ability, you can't do this at all" Example "If you can't speak english, you can't undesrtand what I wrote" This two phrases are simple, but think about this: "If you can't read, you can't enter this club" What's the meaning of "can't read"? Does it means that I must be able to read as a whole or it is required that I must be able to read right now? What if I forgot my glasses at home and I "cannot" read because of my poor eyes? In this situation you must ASK to the club owner. He/she will clarify if it is required that you must be able to read right now (because it will appear written requirements on a screen in the club) or you must be able to read as general ability because they don't want illiterates in the club This shows that a "rule" can be readed CORRECTLY in different ways. Both are RAW, but only one is the owner requirement, only one is "really correct"
Nom 06-15-07, 10:00 AM	There's a legitimate use of "rules as written", that isn't nit-picking. It's used when someone wants to draw a distinction between "what the rules say" and "alternative (better) ways of doing it". As in "RAW X, but I recommend Y". RAW is sometimes taken to mean "the literalistic reading of the rules". However, the correct distinction is between "what the rules say" (which admittedly might be ambiguous) and "what I think". It's the failure to separate these two categories that causes many of the disagreements.
Geogoose 06-15-07, 12:32 PM	RAW - Rules as Written. Use the rule as it is presented, complete and in context. Houserules often conflict with RAW, by design. A houserule is meant to modify or add to the RAW. Sometimes the Rules as Written have more than a single valid interpretation. Words aren't very specific, writers aren't lawyers, flavor text muddling up a rule, take your pick. These message boards are a good source of discussions about which (RAW) interpretations are valid, which interpretations are easier to game with, or simply which ones are more fun or worth houseruling. The term RAW isn't supposed to be a , "In your face I'm right!" statement in gamer code. Some people like to say, "By RAW such and such is preposterous!" in a sarcastic way to point out that the rulebooks are not 100% foolproof. While others like to drop a , "By RAW xxxx." to get some posters back on track after arguing rules they've mingled with housrules or misinterpretations.
Leilond 06-18-07, 03:06 AM	There's a legitimate use of "rules as written", that isn't nit-picking. It's used when someone wants to draw a distinction between "what the rules say" and "alternative (better) ways of doing it". As in "RAW X, but I recommend Y". RAW is sometimes taken to mean "the literalistic reading of the rules". However, the correct distinction is between "what the rules say" (which admittedly might be ambiguous) and "what I think". It's the failure to separate these two categories that causes many of the disagreements. Sure. The problem is that some users "think" their interpretation is "RAW" and all other interpretations aren't. Sometimes they're right, but sometimes the rule is simply "ambiguous" and no RAW can be pointed uniquely For this reason "by the RAW" is a phrase that must be used with "caution" and not like a "talisman of the rightness"
Phrennzy 06-18-07, 01:58 PM	RAW is a condition caused by too much friction and not enough lubrication. It has very little to do with D&D but quite a bit to do with B&D, S&M, and other similar 'games'.
darkeness 06-18-07, 03:21 PM	RAW is a condition caused by too much friction and not enough lubrication. It has very little to do with D&D but quite a bit to do with B&D, S&M, and other similar 'games'. My, my... my wife was complaining about that just a bit ago (reminaing thoughts edited for the kidies) :D Was that a bit much? Phrennzy started it! :P
JMKoontz 06-19-07, 07:13 PM	RAW: Red Ant Warriors. Formians? :mymy:
Mock26 06-19-07, 10:01 PM	Formians? :mymy: Yep! I bet you didn't know all those people quoting the RAW were actually formians here to take over the earth!
Eightbitmage 06-19-07, 10:20 PM	What is RAW? RAW is WAR!! On monday nights at 9 on USA.
weasel0 06-20-07, 10:02 AM	Ready Any Weekday!!
Mock26 06-20-07, 01:59 PM	Rabbits Are Wascally
Bedlamtom 06-20-07, 02:13 PM	Am I the only one who thought... Undercooked goblin?
weasel0 06-20-07, 06:14 PM	Any kind of goblin... cooked or not.... uck!
Bedlamtom 06-20-07, 06:58 PM	Any kind of goblin... cooked or not.... uck! That's because the sacrid recipe book is mine and mine alone! I alone know how to turn leftover goblins into a tangy stew!
calronmoonflower 06-21-07, 02:55 AM	Rules As Written But allot of people seems to use it as Rationize And Whine