So we all know what RAW stands for. "Rules as Written".
When discussing rules questions on this forum it's often asked what does RAW say? I think that's a good question, but there was a problem. When we only worked under the RAW or houserule categories there were wildly different views on the cutoff between RAW and a houserule. This became a point of contention so much so that posters were accusing others of not playing by the rules and so on.
So we have proposed a new intermediary category between RAW and houserules called "Rules and Object Implicit Properties" or ROIP. This category is intended to match up with RAW on everything except for the following exception: when an object is stated as being in the game that object has certain implicit properties by virtue of being that object and those properties will be maintained in the game world (unless altered by special abilities or by magic)
For example, if a question was asked about whether a torch can ever not give light the two different answers will be as follows:
RAW: By RAW Torches always give light no matter if they are lit or unlit or even put in a bucket full of water.
ROIP: By ROIP Torches can be lit and unlit since those are implicit properties of something being a torch. A torch can become unlit by sticking it in a bucket full of water. (I'm sure numerous other implicit torch properties could be listed as well)
So I'm not going to argue over which method is better to use to answer rules questions. But I do want to introduce ROIP as a way to answer rules questions. I hope by prefacing posts with this new term we can avoid RAW vs houserule debates. I also hope it will help give posters a more complete understanding by getting answers from both the RAW and ROIP perspective.
Thoughts? Concerns? Questions?
Here's my counterproposal:
If the person asking the rules question is a player, the answer is "Ask your DM."
If the person asking the rules question is the DM, state how you would rule it and say "But another DM might rule it differently." When someone else gives their ruling and it differs from yours, you will have no reason to engage any further.
And at no point does anyone say RAW, RAI, or any other acronym along those lines.
iserith wrote:
When I was in middle school, I told my friends I was going to start saying "freezy" instead of "cool"
Guess how long that lasted?
The distinction you make is useful, and it's not a bad meme, but you can't change the language of an entire culture (in this case, the WotC forum users) with a single instance or suggestion. Now that you've brought it up, use it and see if it catches on. If it doesn't, nothing personal... just that the culture didn't need or want it.
Nevvur wrote:
It's just too bad your acronym sounds like something a Slaad would belch as addendum to an insult. "You look tasty but ugly! Turn you into spawn feed ROIP!"
FrogReaver wrote:
iserith wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
The only problem I can forsee is the IMPLICIT word, since what IMPLICIT for me it's not IMPLICIt for you. What amoutn of physics knowledge should we have?
For your torch example, if I tell you that I dunk the torch in a bucket full of gasoline, a lot of people would believe that IMLICITLY this will ignite the gasoline and maybe even make it explode, but if you dunk the torch in the gasoline, you will actally extinguish the torch (since ther is no oxygen in the gasoline) and simplyt ignite the top of the bucket without any explosion.
If I tell you that I throw my cigarette in a puddle of gasoline on the ground, a lot of people will believe that it will ignite like we see in the movie, but not it won't in reality.
Then why would reality concept would come into or fantasy setting?
If I still didn't convince you, what does your ROIP says about the crossbow expert feat?
RAW: you ignore the loading requirement and can shoot your loaded crossbow as a bonus action EVERY ROUND since you ignore the loading property.
Houserule (that bring reality in the equation) you need a free hand to bring the bolt and shoot it, so you cannot do like the demon hunter from Diablo3.
What does your ROIP say? is it an implicit property to require a free hand to load the crossbow? or does the ignore loading property of the feat let you ingore the implicit property of needing a free hand to load the crossbow?
Sorxores wrote:
TO be honest what your talking about i associate with RAI(rules as intended) and common sense.
Like torches/candles/lanterns/light spells- Just becuase the light only goes 40 feet for you to see, a person way outside that distance will NOTICE the light source, even if they are still sitting in darkness.
Sorxores wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
To me, an implicit rule means "unless otherwise stated, objects act like they do on planet Earth." Dogs go bark. Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. Wood burns.
guachi wrote:
guachi wrote:
It's a side effect of the short cuts out minds take that we refer to fictional concepts as 'objects' that can have properties.
that object has certain implicit properties by virtue of being that object
Noon wrote:
iserith wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noon wrote:
I don't think it needs a fancy new acronym. Roip is RAW. Claiming you don't or shouldn't use context to determine RAW either shows a vast misunderstanding of how the written word works or is agenda driven.
Ahglock wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Sorxores wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Asking for for a specific damage number is also ROIP. ROIP is explicit raw and object implicit properties. It resolves any dispute between the two things by favoring the object implicit properties over the explicit raw.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Im not in going to debate philosophy. In some sense a fictional imaginary object doesn't exist so of course it can't have any properties. However there is also a sense in which that fictional imaginary object exists in your imagination and that inside your imagination it shares the same properties that it would even if it was not in your imagination.
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I I think you are getting close to what I am proposing. I think there's still a small difference though.
ROIP is definetly raw plus a few things that make it not raw.
ROIP will not cover every modification to RAW, it only covers instances where object implicit properties are used as the basis for modifying RAW.
If if object implicit properties don't change anything then ROIP and RAW will answer the same in those situations.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
After reading this thread and thinking about all that was presented here, I think I will not be using the ROIP in my conversations. I find the term seems to be trying to allow someone to argue for their particular interpretation of a rule based on the things they want to be true. For me, I will leave the points as RAW or how the DM elects to adjudicate them. RAW and ROI seem to cover what does not fall under "DM's discretion". So I just don't see the need for another term.
Now having said that, I would not ignore your use of the term, just that I would assume your point was that the rule was open to interpration and that each DM will make the call for their table. And that is something I can always agree upon.
FrogReaver wrote:
Would you agree that within the context of the game, there is an idea called "bow" that has at least a partial correlation to the idea of "bow" in the real world?
jonathonhawke wrote:
The manner in which I have seen a bow used (and used one myself) is:
One hand grips the bowstave, while the other hand
a) draws an arrow from the quivver
b) nocks the arrow to the string
c) pulls the string back, and
d) releases the string.
The arrow is then propelled in the direction of the target.
Is this different from your understanding of how a bow works?
In the original post to which DungeonKrusher was referring, the poster was claiming that the arrow could not be drawn from the quivver because the user has no free hand, the bow being a two-handed weapon, (This sentence refers, of course, to the fictional in-game bow)
dafrca wrote:
Noon wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noon wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
It should also be noted that the whole reason why you can still use a bow properly is that you reload the weapon as part of the attacks you make. The same can be said of ANY ammunition property weapon. That's why you don't need a free hand. It's completely simplified by being part of the attacks you make and only requires a fluff explanation such as Noon said:
Noon wrote:
The problem I have with the "it's all in you mind, man" argument is that at a certain point it looses coherence.
Assuming that a bow doesn't work like a real world bow is fine, but where do you stop? Does it mean I can describe my character (a rogue with a hat and mask, wearing stripes) carrying around a giant Big Mac firing mystical pickles? It's all fluff after all.
As the PHB states on page 5 "... begin with a foundation of medieval fantasy and then add the creatures, places, and magic that make these worlds unique." My medieval fantasy starts with people shooting bows 
not the hamburgler.
If we're going to get into a specific argument about how bows work, I would refer you to http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4163911. We don't need another hand crossbow thread.
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noon wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Let me post a slightly different question. If I were to create rules that mimiced real world bows but had to be simplified for a pencil and paper game, they would look pretty much identical to the current rules.
Make the assumption you want bows in game to work like real world bows. How would you write the rules?
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Ok, I guess I am lost again. I thought I was following this thread until right now.
First, what is the difference between RAI and the proposed ROIP?
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Roup up was a typo lol.
I'll be happy to answer. But first By RAI do you mean rules as intended or rules as interpreted?
dafrca wrote:
dafrca wrote:
Thanks guys, I appreciate the answers. I had alsways understood RAI to mean "Rules As Interpreted". It was shorthand to allow you to answer how you used a rule that was vague at your table. So I could give an answer and quickly acknowledge my answer included some assumptions on my part. Where RAW was just quoting a rule word for word, no additional input by you, the DM.
Again, thanks for the replies. 
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I think ROIP could be included as a small subset of rules as interpreted.
The difference is that ROIP is including a specific way of interpreting the rules. RAI could be associated with any way of interpreting the rules. As such it's less useful in discussions since The basis for your interpretation may be different than mine. ROIP avoids this by including the interpretative framework to be used in its definition
dafrca wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
There's a staggering amount of effort being put forth to pretend this isn't another Crossbow Expert thread.
sigfile wrote:
This thread is much much broader than that.
Though crossbows do make a good example of one place where RAW and ROIP differ.
sigfile wrote:
Seems there is still a need for a term between RAW and houserules and yet ROIP is R.I.P.
Just Sayin...
FrogReaver wrote:
Constructive Denial comes to mind.