DMs have always been able to customize their game to change things, both rules and flavour.
In 5e it not only seems possible, but expected. The game almost assumes that DMs will choose an arrays of variant rules and options. Even the stripped down Basic ruleset has some optional rules.
Choosing not to customize is making a choice between rules. And even allowing the PHB is permitting optional content and rules into the game. Arguably, using feats is as much a deviation from RAW as the optional encumbrance system or any of the other rules modules in the DMG. Or, alternatively, using a variant rule as-is is still RAW as the module is codified.
Does the letter of Rules As Written still matter?
Has it really ever?
Phobos wrote:
Qmark wrote:
I run my games as close to RAW as possible, I think of every house rule I have to include as a failure on the part of the designers. So the more published optional rules the better, that way things can be customized but still RAW.
When I play I dislike house rules and if there are many of them I might just pass on the game.
I also prefer to play as close to RAW as possible. If the game is well-designed, one should be able to do that and the outcome should be the intended game experience. Variants and optional rules are still RAW. I would prefer firm rules for both the players and DM to follow and perhaps some advice for tinkering with the RAW and how that might affect the resulting game experience.
RAW is a system unto itself by which gamers can come up with crazy exploits. These exploits are best described on forums and not actually used in games. So to a small select few I am sure RAW will remain sacred, but not in very many gaming groups.
Does the letter of Rules As Written still matter?
Yes.
I consider house rules a necessary evil. There will never be 0 - unless I write an rpg myself - but the fewer I have to make, the happier I am.
I have had to plan fewer in 5E than in any prior edition, which is why I am so increasingly fond of it.
I try to stick to RAW, as well. There are a couple of areas that I am not so concerned about RAW:
a) Player customization. I will let players discuss with me why they want to change some RAW to add to the roleplay/depth of character.
- We created characters for 5E, and followed the equipment gained via background and class, but when an item the player wanted wasn't listed, I let him change to it.
- Another player wanted to be an Ice Maiden, but there wasn't enough spells to fully reflect her theme so I let her alter a couple of key spells to change from their current elemental property to cold.
- Etc.
Most player can find enough within the given frameworks of creation to make what they imagine come to fruition, but sometimes there is a need to let them bend things a little so that they get what they want but the balance and general structure isn't harmed.
b) NPC customization. Too many creatures are too well known to offer much excitement from the unknown. Plus, I try to reward players who pick up the skills that don't seem as cool, but can offer important information. I know in another thread, this was thought of as DM Cheating, but generally, it's not to cheat, and I know mystery/discovery are almost 4-letter words for some around here, but I find that most, if not all, my players enjoy the freshness and thrill involved with discovery. So while an Ogre might still be an Ogre - I don't alter things such that players will be unbalanced by the thematic change - the exact HPs, AC, Attacks, Reactions, Defenses, and Traits might all see customization to fit whatever the scenario needs.
And, of course, if I am using a published module or adventure, I tend to heavily customize it to fit my campaign, the setting, and the entertainment needs of the players involved.
Paraxis wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Phobos wrote:
I like to stick to RAW as much as possible. If I make a house rule I want it to be because It is adding to the flavor of the particular campaign or to add a little bit of complex for players that want it. I don't want to have to make a house rule because RAW is broken or overly complex. Additive house rules are much more paletable than house rules to changes/remove RAW (especially for mechanics tied to feats and other subsystems.)
I think the RAW matters in the sense that you need to understand what a mechanic is trying to accomplish before making a change to the mechanic.
iserith wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
iserith wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
I personally don't feel that my game has to sacrifice story for quality challenge.
Theres nothing out there preventing me from running awesome stories and awesome encounters/adventures.
Paraxis wrote:
It's funny but in my games the world setting comes first and the rules bow to it. Other people have the opposite view. The only thing fixed for them is the rules and the world spins around those rules.
While it probably sounds hyperbolic, I am very much in the camp that a roleplaying game is players controlling characters and the DM adjudicating what they do. The rules are guidelines and suggestions. The better the rules the more I follow those guidelines. I never feel bound to follow them though. Whatever is best for the game.
I believe lots of optional rules fosters houserules anyway. I think fostering houserules is a very good thing. The tyranny of the letter written will only lead a lot of players to abandon the game who don't enjoy that tyranny. Being open to changes let's each group find what works for them. A game that discourages houserules makes that process harder.
Phobos wrote:
I think that RAW will not be as dogmatic a quality as it was in 4e. When someone suggests a house rule in 5e they will not be rediculed or accused of suggesting that the system is flawed. I found that there were far too many gamers on the 4e forums that were offended by the suggestion of a house rule.
IMO, an rpg system is flawed when it doesn't lend itself well to house rules.
dmgorgon wrote:
CCS wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Paraxis, realize though that the game designers have designed a game that has to accommodate everyone. If they had designed it specifically for my group and me then I'd be more inclined to assume the best. The problem is that the game may target a playstyle not directly in line with mine so I may need to tweak it. Using con instead of con bonus at first level for example makes sense for people that want to start out a little stronger. It doesnt make the devs wrong that they didn't design it that way. If they had then everyone who wanted it's con bonus would have to change it back. You can't design the perfect game for everyone. That is why everyone can hopefully adjust it to their individual liking.
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
From day one, the very first day that Gygax and Arneson even dreamed, D&D has been about adventurers facing challenges and players using their wits to get past those challenges. That aspect of D&D has been a thread through all editions for many people. So any houserule in support of that goal is not at all changing the nature of D&D. Obviously a houserule that says whatever a player states is true if no prior facts dispute it is a pretty far reaching one that perhaps changes the very tenor of the game. In that case, the question as to when you have went so far afield that you are no longer playing D&D is perhaps a fair one.
For me, I think the rules are a toolbox to be used but they should never become a fun suicide pact. If the group is having fun then all is well.
Emerikol. wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
iserith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Yes, RAW matters. For two reasons:
1: If it's not good, what are we supposed to be paying for? It's not like D&D fluff is a secret, the intertubes are full of it, so the rules have to be worth buying. If the expectation is that the rules are riddled with bits that are left up to the DM, I'm not about to spend that much time on them as a DM, and nor's anyone else in my current D&D group, so we just don't have anyone to run the game. We're all, I think, willing to give it a fair crack of the whip as players.
2: Organised play. Has to run by RAW, really, to provide a satisfactory play experience. Accordingly, they've already had to set up something that's more or less an organised play houserule document. This is inevitable with OP, but 5es seems likely to get long and unweildy (and I played LFR!).
TiaNadiezja wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
As far as the OP's question:
RAW matters, as the framework for social understanding and "common ground" among players/DMs.
I would lend more weight to RAI, than a strict, literal interpretation of RAW (if there is a conflict). I think that 5th Edition's rules leave enough open interpretation to cover many playstyles. Which, I believe is the intent of the rules; avoiding much of the RAW vs. RAI conflicts (unless they become errated into rules that are too precise/specific; which I think would be a disservice to the game and I fear might drive away many of the playerbase that they're trying to recapture).
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Grazel wrote:
You guys wanna talk Monopoly?
I'll give you a Monopoly.
The_Jester wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
*peeks inside at how such a topic evolved*
thespaceinvader wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
As a player, I would almost always choose a game based upon the DM. The DM is in some sense the game. He is the real rules engine. Of course, based on the actual game rules and house rules he proposes, I will choose to play or not play.
If houseruling is promoted, then RAW matters less. If RAW really matters then 5e is unplayable by me. I won't play with dissociative mechanics and there are some. I think D&D very much should promote houseruling and the DM making the game his own. This approach is exactly what Gygax did in 1e and I believe it works best. That is not to say many won't play RAW. I just think we over do our respect for RAW and as a result the game gets rejected because RAW will never be perfect for everyone.
D&D is not a board game. It's not competitive between the players. For that reason RAW is less important. If two people sit down with the intention of defeating the other person, then the exact rules used to achieve that purpose are very important. The chess example is apropo. You can't just move you knight like a queen and expect me to accept it. On the other hand, in D&D, you are entering a fantasy world created by the DM. The rules help you to understand that world but you also realize that the rules do not describe the world perfectly. The DM can and should overrule the rules when those rules fail in their purpose which is simulating the DM's world.
I am not against good rules. I am against though any sort of tyranny of RAW. No rules lawyer is ever going to shove the rules down my throat. At best he will be told to sit down and shut up and react to what actually happened in the world. At worst, he'll be tossed out of the game entirely and sent on his way. The latter of course only after repeated attempts to disrupt the game.
I'm only looking for one type of DM: a benevolent dictator. If he's a jerk I move on. If he is a lousy creator I move on. If he won't do the work, I move on. If he does a great job and runs his campaign as the ultimate engine of reality in his world then I'm happy. I'll explore that world and enjoy it.
... You really do feel the need to keep using "dissociative mechanics" when the term has no useful meaning, don't you?
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I would say that Rules as Written has never "mattered" outside of organized, officially sanctioned games.
When you play D&D with your friends, who cares what the folks at WotC (or TSR, or whoever) thinks makes a fun game? The only thing that matters is what makes a fun game for you and your friends.
If you are lucky enough to find a roleplaying game that is perfect for you in every detail, great! Personally, I have never found such a game. There are always little tweaks and adjustments I can make to turn the game into something even better for me and my friends.
For example, I added a third level of resting: very short rest. After combat, the PCs can spend 5 minutes to quickly catch their breath and tend to any wounds, spending hit dice as desired. This cuts down on the dependence on magical healing.
Emerikol. wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
RAW (an acronym I hate) only mattters in so far as the game works best near it. 4E was the first edition I ever ran close to RAW, earlier editions, to varying degrees, didn't work very well. If I run 5E I will probably have to revert to less RAW for home play. I'm generally more of a RAI/spirit guy anyways.
Gunthar wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
I thought post #2 summed it up fairly well.
My opinion on the matter: Knowing what the rules say is just the first step to understanding how and when to change them.
The_Jester wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
The_Jester wrote: