Almost every post I read is RAW this, RAW that, boo effin hoo RAW says you can't do [insert whatever you want here]. In this edition RAW is whatever the Dm and the players decide that it is. That is the nature of the game. The PHB, MM, and the upcoming DM, are guidelines. They are not code typed into a computer that all must abide by.
I do and of what i can see rules still get interpretated as they are written with the new system, its just that some rules are written with less clarity and thus are more open to interpretations, including varying ones, because of their imprecisions.
RAW is an excercise of interpretation of rules-as-written, and some rules have multiple RAWs instead of just one. This IMO create more problem than it solve any, because the less interpretation variation a rule or game element has, the less argument about its functioning there usually is IMX. To take a simple exemple, nobody argues how Shove works because it has only one interpretation of how its resolution works and its usually adjucated the same way across all tables.
Personally i prefer clearer rules as they more easily fade into the background IMO, being less of a source of arguments. While 4E had its goods and bads, the clarity of its rules made it, among all of them, the edition with which my group had the less arguments at the table and i'm probably not the only one.
I prefer DM interpretations to come into play for rules or situations not covered by the books, not for unclear rules functioning or interactions purposefully written so that they're more obscure and subject to (mis)interpretations. While i really like 5E, it's probably one of my biggest gripe about it.
RAW matters but only as a baseline, RAI is how the game is played and RAW usually on comes into it at the game table when you're dealing with a munchkin or rules lawyer trying to exploit rules for their benefit. What Plaguescarred is describing is mostly RAI which is RAW interpreted. As he stated though in 5e (and even in 4e) there are rules that aren't clearly written and force a RAI situation as RAW isn't clear (while many will argue that their RAI is RAW).
The problem on these forums is sometimes people are trying to push RAW to extremes by saying if it's not stated as allowed in RAW than it's not possible and others that if it's not explicitly disallowed in RAW than it is allowed. Of course both situations are actually RAI since RAW is mute on the matter leaving it up to the DM (and the table as a whole) to determine if it is or isn't allowed.
I frequently mock what I see as RAW-fetishism, but I still think it is useful to understand what the RAW are, if only to know what players might try to do or argue (three of my players are real-life attorneys, and a fourth is a law student, so 'rules lawyer' is not entirely metaphorical in my group...).
Still, I am old school in the sense that I think that everything printed in a rulebook is a guideline/suggestion for the DM, and that nothing is really a 'rule' until the DM decides to enforce it at the table. Nor do I think that it is always important for players to be able to predict with certainty how something will work at the table, for the same reason Gygax wrote that:
As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players.
RaW and RaI generally only come up in the context of the forums and when dealing with white-room analysis of things like 'class balance' or 'character optimization' or 'broken monsters' etc.
For the most part it doesn't exist in the 'real world' of people who actually play the game with other humans. Very rarely you might encounter someone who tries to pull some sort of 'rules lawyer' tactics at the table, but generally that sort of behavior (in my experience) is quickly shut down, either by simply excluding such players from the group or by educating them on how to properly behave in social settings.
It also tends to crop up more frequently at the outset of a new edition, when honest folks are actually trying to understand the new rules. Usually in the real world, it gets resolved pretty simply by the DM making some sort of 'on the fly' judgement at the table, which may then get modified later on as the group adjusts its understanding of the rules.
For example, as I was running Lost Mines for the first time, I hadn't completely read the AC rules, and I was incorrectly allowing players to stack Mage Armor with the Monk and Barbarian class traits, giving those characters an AC advantage that is not appropriate. After some forum research I realized our error and explained the situation to the players. We agreed to start playing 'by the rules' going forward and adjusted the ACs appropriately without any arguement or hard feelings. Everyone knows we're playing a new edition and that mistakes will happen on both sides of the screen and as reasonable people we just adjusted things and moved on without any drama.
Your social circles may vary, of course, but luckily for me, I've been blessed with mostly playing the game with reasonable adults and the few times I've encountered players who didn't fit that model, it wasn't hard to guide them into a more mature playstyle. This has most frequently occured during organized play at my local game store, but even then, the offenders were easily educated and eventually grew into mature players who are a joy to game with now. A little patience and leading by example is all it takes usually 
Thanks for the responses. I played and DMed 1st and 2nd edition (I still have all my 1st edition books). This RAW stuff just didn't come up. If the DM said the Tarrasque could throw a house than it could. PERIOD. It didn't matter what the book said. I havent picked up a RP book since 2nd edition before this new edition came out. I figured I would look on the internet for some usefull advice and all it is is people argueing about RAW.........
I've always said and will always say that what you do at your table (interpretation or houserules IE) is yours and yours alone. However that doesn't change what's in the book. If you come to the rules forum and ask a question about how a rule works, they should get what's in the book, not what you do at your individual tables. If from there they decide to make changes, that's their prerogative.
So that's why you will find my posts pointing out the RAW in threads. At least that way everyone at the table can have the same baseline or understanding and if from there they decide to change things to make their gaming experience more fun, all the power to them. But trying to push what your interpretation is, especially when it's founded on fluff/common sense/real world/etc.. , on people asking how the rules work is never acceptable.
It's an interesting question of whether debates about RAW appeared because of something about the 3.x and beyond rules, or the nature of the internet during the last 14 years vs. the 80s & 90s. I think it is probably a bit of both-- I remember subscribing to dragon magazine before wotc destroyed it and reading skip williams's 'sage advice' column, and if it were on the internet with comments allowed, I suspect the concept if not specific terminology may have arisen. But 1e and 2e were not designed in such a way that a DM could plausibly defend every position he or she took as being pure-RAW. What 4e separated into 'flavor' vs. 'mechanics' was not really separate in 2e, and indeed often the rules only described what would later be considered 'flavor.'
It raises an interesting rules-ontological question: are the rules the mechanics, or are they the flavor? For example, when I cast "Barkskin," is the underlying essence of that spell that it raises my minimum AC to 16, or that it makes my skin hard and barklike? Which is epiphenomenal of which? Old school 1e/2e people, I think, would mostly consider it the latter, while new school people raised on 4e would mostly consider it the former (people raised on 3.x might be more split).
**"I've always said and will always say that what you do at your table (interpretation or houserules IE) is yours and yours alone."**
But isn't that the entire game? How is there any other way to play? You seriously expect a gaming group to play only the rules in the book(s) exactly as they are printed? 
Well sure. But that doesn't mean that the written rules aren't meaningful as such.
bigirishyooper wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
In 4E it was kind of assumed that everyone existed in a cartoon universe where virtually every class could warp reality and we just had to sit back and say WTF to things like a fighter's "Come and Get It" power. D&D 3.x variants (including Pathfinder) tried to be very explicit on how character interacted with reality which lead to a very rules-heavy game.
I prefer 5E because it lets me DM (or play) in a world that is logically consistent with how reality works, assuming magic can manipulate that reality. So when I read the rules I do make some basic assumptions that correlate back to the real world. Like ... you have to have legs to walk or (as is hotly debated on other threads) that drawing ammunition from a container requires some method of interacting with the container even if the rules don't explicitly state it.
In general I try not to be a rules lawyer, but yeah there are times when I DM that I'm going to disagree with you. When someone else DMs I will probably disagree with them occasionally. When DMing I try to be consistent and fair. I can also guarantee that I screw up judgement calls on a regular basis, just like every DM alive. The only way to have a game world that is 100% consistent and always uses the same rules is to play a video program.
There are some people who argue that absence of a rule means that by RAW they can ignore basic logic. There is no rule that states that you cannot walk through a wall, but we all make the assumption that you cannot unless you use magic. Going back to video games, one of the things that bugs me is when you clip through an object. In the real world, solid objects do not work that way.
So do I follow RAW? Yes. Do I also make judgement calls on how you interact with the physical universe to clarify RAW? Yes. Is it ok to ignore how things work in the real world if magic is involved or everyone at the table agrees? Absolutely.
So back to the original question. I assume that real-world reality still works in a D&D unless the RAW explicitly overrides it.
Bumamgar wrote:
bigirishyooper wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Timborama wrote:
I tend to assume that what people post on the Rules forum, on the offical D&D forum with a question, they want the RAW answer.
- But I'm happy to add in suggestions for changes.
But I concur that 5E is basically alot more flexiable and DM-Fiat "It's reasonable" in intent than 3E and 4E mindsets.
From what I've read of what Gygax has writtten/said, he had a far looser expectations of sticking to rules than many people on this forum, and was quite annoyed with arguments from "realism", given D&D isn't meant to be "realistic".
Personally I think a good understanding of what is RAW is the best place to think about house rules.
It would be kinda nice to have more insights into the *intent* the designers
Personally I think the "interacting with object" rule is vastly more restrictive than it needs to be, and is rather out of place with the rest of 5E rules.
From Mearls' tweets... I don't think the intent is for people to obsess over it:
https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/shield-and-spellcaster/ - "@MonumentGames just stow that weapon in the shield hand for a moment and you're good - the rule isn't there to restrict, but to clarify"
https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/eldritch-free-hand/ - "@ChameleonX4d sure - in general, handling of objects is a DM tool to counter any abuses by players"
However you can see the progression from the earlier playtests where it was phrased:
Many of the most common interactions with items—drawing or sheathing a sword, moving through a door that opens easily, picking up a scroll, withdrawing a potion from your backpack, and the like—do not require an action. You are generally assumed to be able to incorporate such uses into your turn, while you move and take your action.
Sometimes, however, the DM will require you to use your action when an item needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, a DM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door.
Grazel wrote:
RAW, generally speaking, is one of any number of proposed systems for interpreting ambiguous rule issue. The signature feature of RAW is the great weight and value it places on ease of consistency; it values rule interpretation systems that most easily and quickly result in a uniform result. Some people value this emphasis in places like rules forums and in organized play, places where potentially conflicting results could be confusing or result in inconsistent application. With its focus on ease of consistency, a RAW interpretation can suffer in other areas that aren't as highly valued, areas such as accuracy or adherence to drafter's intent. There are legitimate arguments for and against using RAW as a basis for answering rules questions, though I feel its lopsided focus on ease of consistency is emphasis on a niche priority over more tangible and valuable priorities.
In practice, however, RAW is normally bandied about as a code word for correctness. When someone describes their interpretation as RAW, it is often shorthand for saying that their interpretation is the best or that it is the most correct.
FrogReaver wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Well to be fair...
The meta-rules for Advneturers League basically say that you need to be RAW complient on character creation.
SO thats one case where its actually relevent.
If you're running your own game... then make it your own. All the rules are suggestions.
Well to be fair...
The meta-rules for Advneturers League basically say that you need to be RAW complient on character creation.
SO thats one case where its actually relevent.
If you're running your own game... then make it your own. All the rules are suggestions.
FrogReaver wrote:
Cyberqat wrote:
Cyberqat wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I think that it is important to be able to delineate what the rule book says, and what the DM says.
If for no reason other than to prepare a player that plays at my table (or some other home DM's table) for what is likely to be different if/when that player sits in at another DM's table, and to mentally prepare players and DMs alike for the reality that, even if both believe that they are adhering to the RAW, one DM's game is going to be different from another DM's game.
Beyond that, RAW has no purpose in my mind.
Not so much. I just want ot have a good time, it is never the same twice. 
Illithidbix wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Are you seriously comparing having a wish granting genie with breathing in a DND game? Granted I've had one to many tasty beverages, however it's boggling my rational and comeptiive mind (yes I wish I had convinced Bloodscythe he was really better off with my viewpoint) that this would even be uttered in the same argument. Have you all heard of black letter law? Seriously? BREATHING when RAW humans are for lack of a better term HUMANS? Come on, pick a better example. It's not even entertaining, it's just plain frustrating. I expect better for my late night bar crawl entertainment. Step it up!
bigirishyooper wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
bigirishyooper wrote:
Thanks for all the responses everyone. I honestly wasn't trying to start another thread argueing about RAW..... I have been away from the hobby for so long this is just a new term to me, and seems kind of silly really. BUT..... for the folks out there who have logically stated their stance, thanks again. Obviously we need rules or we would be standing around in the yard yelling "bang I got you." As an old school gamer (I hate saying that) I just don't get it. Please don't use this thread as another BS free hand vs. no free hand arguement (in my opinion they are both right......).
Grazel wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
bigirishyooper wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
bigirishyooper wrote:
bigirishyooper wrote:
Angel_of_the_Dawn wrote:
bigirishyooper wrote:
bigirishyooper wrote:
bid wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
bid wrote:
No actually it's "rules as written" so exactly as they are written in the book. We've been over this many times now.
RAW (Rules As Written), abbreviation
1. The rules as they are written down in a source, without further interpretation, adjustment, addition or removal.
Compare: RAI, Homebrew
Noctaem wrote:
Is RAW Important? Yes.
Without RAW, we're all making up a game. And why would anyone want to purchase a produce from a company, where *you* have to do all the work, as there's no 'rules' incuded.
Secondly, RAW is common ground. It's the *only* common ground for a game system that seperate groups have.
I houserule, you houserule, and parts of our games are vastly different. For example (using a different game system), from a very early start in using the White Wolf Vampire system, we allowed Stamina to soak aggravated damage. For balance in our games. No freshly generated Gangrel with Claws of the Beast and some freebie spent on Potence is going to one hit kill the Sherrif/Prince, becuase they couldn't soak 7+ aggravated damage in any way.
That changes some fundamental parts of the system, and work great for the way *we* use it.
Other groups play totally different, and with differnet rules, have different balance issues / priorities.
I once discussed our rules with a totally seperate Vampire player, and we both had vastly different in game experiences. With little common ground.
Focussing on RAW, gives us as a global community something set to discuss and build from. And not just for 'organised' or 'tournament' play.
Asking for character builds/opions, balance issues, monster designs, etc, is an exercise in futility, if the set of rules everyone is using in the discussion is different.
Moon Druids aren't OP, but Rangers are!!! o_O Well, we've changed how Wildshaping works, and buffed the Rangers level 20 capstone...
Oh. OK...
paulstrait wrote:
We were discussing a logically consistent way to interpret the RAW (never RAI!) when the RAW fail to specify if something is either permitted or disallowed. Neither your proposed hermeneutic device nor anything in my post makes any sense outside of that context. It is sort of irrelevent whether the DM makes a ruling that is logically consistent (don't get me wrong, it is important, but not relevant to this very specific issue you proposed); what we are discussing is one meta level above that question. I am saying that, first of all (and this is something I don't believe you have responded to), that it is not logically consistent to adopt an 'always'/'never' style rule for dealing with stuff not made explicit in the RAW, and second, that it would be more logically consistent to say that in those cases, the DM's judgment must prevail. That judgment can be logically consistent or not, but the rule invoking the need for DM judgment is itself more logically consistent than the 'always'/'never' cases, which are so absurd that they would not even prevail in organized play.
This is such a meta issue and I'm kind of tired of going back and forth on it, so this is the last I will post on it here. You are welcome to have the last word if you are still not persuaded.
RAW is important duirng the editing process. You want rules as clear as possible. During actual play though, I'm not sure why so many DMs feel utterly constrained to RAW, even when it makes no sense.
In a lot of ways I feel that DMs have lost a lot of the art since AD&D. I realize that sounds grognardish, but a lot of 3E/4E DMs I see have let the RAW utterly straitjacket them, and seem to be incapable of making rulings in favor of common sense. If you want a prime example of that, see the Tarrasque thread, where people are arguing about if a thrown rock has the thrown property by RAW, and that if it doesn't it should be doing 1d4 damage, even if it happens to be a boulder. Yeah, they don't want to allow the strength modifier on it, because of some crazy rules lawyer interpretation. And that right there is the festering cancer that infected modern DMs.
A reasonable DM should be asking himself: Is it possible to throw a boulder? If so, would throwing it with more force cause it to do more damage? And thus it should add strength bonus. Seems simple right. You don't even have to open the PHB.
But many people that learned to DM in the modern age seem utterly incapable of this little bit of common sense and logic. They've been conditioned to act like unthinking computers, who will accept the nonsensical so long as it's legal and yet are terrified to contradict the rules to use something that follows common sense. I'm hoping the 5E DM's guide tries to reverse the prior "RAW is God" brainwashing that the prior two editions have tried to hammer into DM's skulls. It's really one of those things that kills the storytelling aspect of the game.
Noctaem wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
We need a consistent agreement of how our shared world works in order to have cooperative story telling, but that doesn't mean that the rules written in the book are meant to or could ever cover every interaction a PC or creature can have with the world.
For example, I've seen people argue that a spellcaster with a bow could not use somatic components because the rules say that a bow is a 2-handed weapon. Obviously you need 2 hands to attack, but when you aren't attacking? To say you can't use the hand not holding your bow for the somatic component is just silly.
Or take movement for example. While I've never seen anyone argue that their PC can walk on water, there is no requirement in the written rules that state you have to walk on a solid surface.
On the other hand, most games I play do tend to gloss over some stuff like needing a free hand to draw and drink a potion. Most people just hand-wave it for simplicity or assume that a sword is being tucked under an arm temporarily or some such. In addition most DMs don't care if a paladin or cleric have a free hand to cast spells ... which could just be written off as the somatic component involving raising your sword to the skies as you call down the power of your god. Neither is technically RAW, just common practice in my experience.
but it is the only way to really explain how some people are unable to distinguish between a houserule (a rule the DM adopts that deviates from the RAW) and a ruling on a matter that is not explicit in the RAW...
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Any scholar of rhetoric can tell you that there's no such thing as RAW. By reading the rules and stating what you believe they say, you are bringing something of yourself to the text. Your understanding of what the rules say can also change over time. RAW is only important insofar as it helps you understand RAI and gives you basic parameters for game balance.
When someone says, "It's RAW!" all they can really mean is that it's the rules as they understand them at the time.
RCanine wrote:
No, absolutely not. In organized play, there are no houserules. What does a DM in organized play do when a situation is not covered explicitly by the rules?
Noon wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Why?
What's the point in the differentiation?
If you're making up a totally new rule at your table, or modifying an existing rule so that it does something else at your table, the end result is the same.
Neither would give the same outcome as using a rule as printed in a rulebook.
paulstrait wrote:
An example.
Take the Restrained condition. You might decide that the Conditions given in the book don't cover enough situations, and decide to modyfiy Restrained and create a new condition 'Bound'.
You modify Restrained to be move zero, but can take any action. And create Bound to be move as normal, but can't take any actions. With the additional ruling that if you are both Restrained and Bound, you then become Incapacitated.
Is anyone seriously trying to argue that;
1: Restrained is now a Houserule, as you've changed an existing book rule. But Bound is RAW as you're creating rules for a new situation not covered by the books.
2: That calling one a Houserule and one RAW makes any meaningful distinction? Both interact with a character in a way not covered by the rules as printed in the rulebook. Should they be seperate?
Noon wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Totally time to agree to disagree. ;)
I'm of the stance that if Manacles have no rules on how they function, and the DM creates these for use in thier games, it can only be a houserule.
Any time a DM has to change (which includes additions) rules to make something/a situaiton work, they are no longer following the RAW.
And I see no benefit to trying to sub divide DM intervention into varying degrees of houserules of one name or another.
Noon wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noon wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
Well for me it's because most of the time on this forum, people disagree from a perspective of "common sense", realism and fluff. The rule in the book isn't changing, the people are just adding on layers of those 3 things to change them in their minds to suit their own conclusions. Which is why I believe that RAW on a rules forum is king. If the rule says blue, it's not green, it's blue. End of discussion. Further discussion can be done of course, but then you're not talking about blue like the rule says, you're talking about green which may be either RAI or Houseruling. That's what people like Bloodscythe don't understand and why it's important to make sure it's communicated clearly.
I don't care what your common sense tells you, I'm not interested that you find the rule overpowered on a level 5 fighter with a handcrossbow + shield. Arguing that the rule in the book (RAW) is not true, on a rule forum, is something that needs to be stamped out immediately. The rule says you can do it with a light melee or thrown weapon, that's the restrictions involved. The rule says your movement speed goes to 0 while restrained, that's what happens. Anything else is no longer the RAW and no longer the rule in the book. By following the RAW and answering with the RAW when rule questions are asked, we create a baseline for everyone. You want to change it at your table? That's your prerogative, but it's no longer a valid answer to someone asking about the rules of this game. There's a forum specifically for Houserules so please direct yourself there instead of clouding the issue and making it more difficult for us to answer the questions.
And we already have that for the most part, the ask a simple question get a simple answer is doing very well with all sorts of questions being asked and answered with RAW. Houseruling has basically no place here. That's why there's always been seperate forum for it.
Noon wrote:
I am wondering what perspective people are coming from with thier viewpoint. Are you almost always a PC? DM? Equal amounts of both? Currently I am about 70% time DMing and 30% time as a PC. I have found that those that DM tend to have a lot looser interpretation of RAW/RAI even when a PC. Those that only play PC's [that I have experienced] tend to sum the rules up as follows:
Rules for PC's - "It doesn't say I can't, so I can"
Rules for DM's - "It doesn't say you can, so you can't"
Case in point, the shield and crossbow rogue. If allowed, it is a great idea to get a little extra kick and defense. What would be your opinion if the DM decided that it is such a great idea that you had actually left a guild of assasins that used that technique and now had to face NPC's with similiar concepts? Usually a good measure of how to judge a situation is looking at how the PC's would react if the NPCs did such an action.
I don't think anyone is claiming that you cannot attack with a loaded hand crossbow. It is after all a one-handed weapon. The question is whether or not you can reload it without a free hand.
Option 1: it's a judgement call on the part of the DM whether you can load another bolt if you're holding someting in the hand that would do the loading.
Option 2: because the loading is part of the action, it just automatically happens. The character does not need to be physically capable of drawing ammunition because it is not explicitly spelled out in the rules.
For those that support Option 2, I have a very simple question. Can your character walk on water? The movement rules do not state that you need a solid surface to walk on. Walking across the water would be part of a legal move action. If the answer is no, why not?
If you're just going to answer "WHAT I SAY IS RAW BECAUSE STUFF AND IF YOU DISAGREE STRAWMAN AND LOGICAL FALLACY!" don't bother.
The OP asked us not to bring that discussion here OoftaMeg so please respect that.
Noctaem wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Noon wrote:
Oh totally. If you throw any sort of context out of the window.
cat = dog
In a language I've just made up.
Bloodscythe wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
For the Origonal question
Almost every post I read is RAW this, RAW that, boo effin hoo RAW says you can't do [insert whatever you want here]. In this edition RAW is whatever the Dm and the players decide that it is. That is the nature of the game. The PHB, MM, and the upcoming DM, are guidelines. They are not code typed into a computer that all must abide by.
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
No one should reference the Most Important Rule / Golden Rule / Ultimate Cop Out in a Rule question Thread.
That's like retreating to the fortress of belief. ;)
Edit: And I promised not to continue with the semantics discussion.
randl wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Thank you Grazel, I was about to post pretty much the same thing.
For someone who argues constantly over the houserules you would use to change the RAW, you sure don't understand what these words mean Bloodscythe.
Grazel wrote:
Grazel wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Thunaer wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
It just seems remarkable to me that so many of us can have one view of what a houserule is, and those who disagree just say "nope, we think the word means something else so you are wrong." It isn't like the rules define what a houserule is. Why so much push back? Why not say "well, apparently, people define it differently. Under one view this is a houserule, but under a more restricted definition, it isn't?" Especially since there might be a use to having a more restricted definition, like for example you are in organized play and you don't want to houserule any more than you have to. Surely you can distinguish between the kinds of table rulings that are appropriate and deviations from the rules. We aren't asking you to change the way you use the word, just to acknowledge that different people use it differently and that when we say something is a houserule or isn't, we might just be using the term differently. It certainly seems like the way we are using the term is not an obscure, minority position...
bid wrote:
I am utterly baffeled by the crazy inventive definitions being thrown around. How about we stop trying to reinvent words just to make any discussion impossible and just use the words and the meanings they already have.
A common use of the term is in role-playing games to signify a deviation of game play from the official rules.
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Noon wrote:
Grazel wrote: