Short version:
According to a rules-and-only-rules definition of RAW since gravity is not defined in D&D it would have to be classified as a house rule. Gravity can't be a house rule because in practice it is a rule in all** D&D games. Therefore a rules-and-only-rules definition of RAW is not applicable to D&D.
Long version:
My definition of the terms (based on the most strict definitions I've seen):
- Rules As Written (RAW): refer to the written text in one of the official rule books or an official FAQ and only the rules. Common sense and knowledge of how real world counterparts to game constructs are irrelevant. Anything that is not "RAW" is a House Rule.
- House Rule: from dictionary.com "A rule that is used in a game only in a specific place, as a particular casino, or only among a certain group of players."
There has been a great deal of discussion that basically comes down to a handful of people saying effectively "that's not RAW, it's a house rule". Examples include things like how bows work or gravity*. I'm sure I could come up with some definition of RAW that would work, but if it's my own personal version of RAW then I don't see the purpose. We could also come up with some term like "CA" for Core Assumption, but once again it's not going to matter.
D&D is not a board game. Unlike board games, RPGs in general start with the basic foundation of the world that we know and then tweak and modify to shape a playable game. There is no way you could write a complete rule set that encompasses everything that people take for granted, so we have to start from a shared basic understanding of the world.
In practice, D&D is an exception based system with a core assumptions based on the real world, with rules that override those core assumptions.
So gravity still works, rain still falls from the sky, water is wet, a boat is still a boat, a bow is still a bow. When you jump you fall back to earth because gravity sucks. When using a bow you use two hands, one to hold the bow while the other draws the arrow and pulls back the string because that's the way bows work. Your DM can make a decision on how dual-wielding hand crossbows work based on what makes sense to them.
There are many, many things in the rules that simplify or override our reality. The falling rules don't take into consideration terminal velocity. Wizards can create balls of fire. Dragons. Hit points.
I know this is a controversial subject, and I don't want to start a flame war. But I get so tired of the arguments around this that I thought I would summarize so I can just say look at thread X.
*A quote from another poster who has asked that I not use his profile name "Feel free to houserule gravity in if you want or homebrew it in. That's your prerogative, but no gravity is not RAW and it's not part of the rules of the game."
[Edit]
** It has been pointed out that in theory someone could run a game without gravity. I think the likelihood of that happening approaches 0 percent, and even if someone did run a campaign like that, they would say something like "Gravity doesn't work in my campaign" as a way of overriding the basic assumption. But ... I don't want to insult anyone so assume that when I say "every game" I'm referring to any game I have ever played in, read, or heard about.
RAW is not the rules and rules alone. That's just the rules.
No, RAW is a specific method of rule interpretation or textual analysis that prizes consistency of result and a four-corners approach as opposed to reliance on extrinsic factors.
Ganymede425 wrote:
People do that as a rheorical strategy in order to impart a pureness to RAW that it doesn't possess on its own. It is a way to transmute what is essentially one of many methods for rule interpretation into the purest and most unadulturated form of the rules.
There are rules. They're in the books.
There are rulings. They might be based on rules, logic, concerns for realism or coolness, the DM's personal whim, or any other consideration or combination thereof.
The End.
Ganymede425 wrote:
If it's "your" version of RAW it cannot be RAW by it's nature. The point of RAW is that any entity reading the same thing RAW will come to the same outcome(s).
Ganymede425 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
As DungeonKrusher alluded to, if people would accept that "The many worlds of the Dungeons & Dragons game are places of magic and monsters, of brave warriors and spectacular adventures. They begin with a foundation of medieval fantasy and then add the creatures, places, and magic that make these worlds unique." was just as much part of RAW as "short swords do 1d6 piercing" I probably wouldn't have as much of an issue.
As it stands, I believe RAW applies to games like Risk where house rules such as "Nuclear Risk" are truly house rules, but not D&D.
I agree with iserith: it's rules, rulings and explanation of my ruling as appropriate.
Then again, I just find it silly that anyone claims that a bow in the game doesn't work something like a real world bow. 
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Yunru wrote:
RCanine wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
> According to a rules-and-only-rules definition of RAW since gravity is not defined in D&D it would have to be classified as a house rule. Gravity can't be a house rule because in practice it is a rule in all D&D games. Therefore a rules-and-only-rules definition of RAW is not applicable to D&D.
My campaigns are all set in Limbo.
Stormborn20 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
And yes, not having house rules is impossible, but that doesn't affect the fact they're not RAW (usually because the subject of said houserules aren't written at all).
OoftaMeg wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
When you make a blanket statement, it only takes one exception to make your argument invalid. It's not a tenable position.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Isnt this RAW argument kinda like claiming there is no such thing as a law because the law doesn't account for every possible situation/context?
The bible doesn't say anything about air conditioning, but we all know it exists.
Did Cliven Bundy make a troll post on the DnD forum?
gravity as a scientific phenomenon doesn't exist in DnD as far as I know. There is just Up and Down. Objects that cant fly fall 'down' towards the ground. Reverse Gravity is a spell.
OoftaMeg wrote:
I just read through this thread and I have to say it was like eating only the meringue from a lemon meringue pie. 
Just as much as you don't need to add gravity to monopoly for figures to move squares, neither do you need add gravity for PC's to move squares.
The OP simply bases its argument on the idea you NEED to add some rules themed around the idea of 'gravity'.
Noon wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noon wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noon wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Guys, this is super easy. I've laid it out for you already. Since that is a very easy concept to internalize and use going forward, your posts have the look of you crying about posters who have bludgeoned you in the past, saying your rulings "aren't RAW." No ruling is RAW because rulings aren't rules, so... maybe get over it and move on?
Noon wrote:
"lol"
BookooHundo wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I'm sorry, but if even one game doesn't match with every other, then it varies from game to game. Therefore the dictionary isn't wrong, your understanding of the definition is. I just made a game where gravity doesn't exist and bodies don't fall over dead (it's set in space of the dead shatter). Therefore both of those are now houserules even if they previously weren't.
Therefore and thusly, anything that's either not defined, or is diferent from what is defined, can vary from table to table and is a houserule.
Yunru wrote:
Still means it's a houserule. Doesn't have to be a spoken houserule, humans make assumptions all the time (again, see "as reality unless otherwise stated").
Also if you want to know the game went horribly. The Cleric, played by my parrot, spent all the time screeching. The druid, played by my dog, spent all the time howling, and the Fighter, played by my niece, kept trying to eat the dice.
Yunru wrote:
iserith wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noon wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
An example of what I envision a game using RAW and only RAW would look like. Can you tell I was bored last night? 
Our cast of players includes Bob the DM and his two players Tim and Sue.
Bob: "Ok, after reading through some of the threads, apparently we should be running the game by RAW and only RAW. All agreed?"
Tim & Sue: "Yep, we want to be official. Down with house rules!"
Bob: "Ok, when we left off the last session you were at the bottom of a 50 ft deep chasm. There are the remains of an old rope bridge hanging down on the north side that you think you might be able to reach while jumping but it looks like you might be able to climb the south side more easily."
"Meanwhile the chasm is filling with rushing ice cold water, you fear if you don't get out soon you will be swept away by the current and drown! In addition you think you see movement in the water."
"What do you do?"
Sue: "Actually we won't drown. There are no rules that say you suffocate if submerged in water."
Bob: "You sure? I could have sworn ..."
Tim: "It doesn't matter. I jump to grab the rope bridge." Rolls some dice "Hmm ... not quite high enough. I jump again from the height of my last jump."
Bob: "You mean you jump from the bottom of the chasm again..."
Tim: "Nope. Jump just specifies how high I jump. Doesn't say I fall back down and gravity is a house rule."
Tim and Sue: "Down with house rules!"
Sue: "You guys are making this too difficult. I just move to the top of the chasm on the south side. I move 30 ft and use my dash action to get the rest of the way."
Bob: "Huh? Oh, right, no requirements that you walk ... errr ... move on a solid surface."
Tim: "I join Sue."
Bob: "Ok ... you are at the top of the chasm, on a flat plain. Overhead barely visible clouds in a dark sky are moving in, obscuring the moon. There's a large oak tree nearby with branches that spread far over the chasm."
"On the other side of the chasm, you see a small cottage with light shining from it's windows."
"If I remember right, your last torch should now be about to burn out and you lost the rest of the torches. You might be able to use some branches from the oak tree to create new ones."
Sue: "There are no rules for a moon, sky or clouds. Those are just scenery, right?"
Bob: "Sure"
Tim: "I just light the torch again. Nothing in the rules says a torch is consumed by being lit. So I light the torch again and get light for another hour."
Sue: "Is there anything else to explore on this side of the chasm?"
Bob: "It doesn't look like it, and you know how dangerous the Plains of Doom can be after dark. The only safety appears to be the cottage."
Tim: "Ok, I move towards the cottage."
Bob: "How are you crossing the chasm? It's 30 ft wide here, too far to jump, and while you see the posts that used to support the rope bridge, it looks like the ropes were cut."
Tim: "I just move across. Remember? No requirement for solid surface."
Bob: "The clouds now cover the sky and you are in complete darkness except for the light of your torch. As you move across the chasm you startle an owl that was in the tree, it flies away into the darkness"
Tim: "It would be cool to add an owl feather to my hat! I shoot the owl with my bow."
Bob: "The owl flew into the night, you don't know where it went. Besides, aren't you holding a torch?"
Tim: "Unless the owl used the hide action, I still know where it is. I can use the bow because the torch doesn't require a hand to hold."
Sue: "Down with house rules?"
Bob: "Ok, you attack the owl." Tim rolls some dice "And kill it. It falls to the ground, dead."
Sue: "Why would it fall?"
Bob: "Never mind. You move over to owl and get some feathers"
Sue: "Feathers aren't defined ... but I guess it's not really a house rule because it's just fluff."
Tim: "After recovering the feathers we move to the house."
Bob: "You hear muffled thumps from inside the cottage. Do you try to enter or look in a window?"
Sue: "Windows are house rules"
Tim: "I open the door."
Bob: "The door is locked."
Sue: "I walk through the wall."
Bob: "Huh? Oh, right no house rules. You can't move through hostile creatures, but walls are not defined as blocking terrain."
Tim and Sue: "Down with house rules!"
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
And to nitpick, doors aren't defined as blocking terrain, nor are they required to be open.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Yunru wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I think that those who are saying that gravity is not part of the rules of the game are perfectly correct.
However, gravity is part of the majority of D&D game settings, and thus rules are included in the game that make use of it (falling, Reverse Gravity, climbing, etc.)
jonathonhawke wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
How to Play (PHB.6)
1) The DM describes the environment.
I just assume this includes gravity, et al. One can hardly call a description of any environment complete without answering the question of gravity. So the onus is on the DM to describe the environments to such an extent that the players are informed enough to act coherently in them. If this includes letting the players know that "oh yeah, there's no gravity here", then it still falls under the basic premise of the first rule of the game - that the DM informs the players of the environment. While that means there are a lot of assumptions that can be made, there's no rule about gravity, as such. There's just a rule that tells the DM to consider and describe it - or its absence - in the environment.
Since it's RAW that the DM has to make a decision on gravity one way or another, it seems silly to ponder whether the existence of that force at any table constitutes a house rule. All houses will have a ruling on gravity one way or the other via Rule #1, so the idea of a gravity being a house rule... kinda reduces the term to meaninglessness. This is the same for any element of the environment. It's just assumed that the DM will define it as needed. If everyone is safe making a priori assumptions about gravity because of the fact that the DM described them all being on a planet, then you're still within the purview of Rule #1 - the DM has described the environment sufficiently for the players to act coherently in it.
ModusPonens wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
How about "in a way consistent with"?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
100!
Nice job, OoftaMeg.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Gravity is not, and never will be part of RAW in general.
But that doesn't make sense, if theres no gravity a RAW interpretation is that you could move off the cliff and just float you'll say (and some have gone to that strawman). The problem with this is simple and stems from the bizzare idea that real world physics has -ANYTHING- to do with anything in D&D. Unless you make real world physics and other scientific concepts part of your world they do not exist.
Why then if you walk over the edge of a cliff do you fall? Because the DM says you do. (Assuming you bother asking him if you do or not)
Why do you come back down when you jump? Because the DM says you do. (Assuming you bother asking him if you do or not)
Does the run away cart you're on skid to a stop because of newtons laws of motion or because the DM says it does? The answer, if you've been paying attention, is 'Because the DM says so'.
If you specifically include 'gravity' as a rule in your game it is indeed a houserule. Why, again there is no real world physics in D&D. Concepts and ideas may be loosely based on them, but the game is not built around scientific laws or theories. Its built around fantasy, adventrue, and telling epic stories. Does gravity exist? No, it doesn't. But the idea generally holds true most of the time, and is told through descriptions, not an arbitrary rule.
Perhaps you will walk into a room that naturally Escher like. Note I said naturally. Not as in magic created it but that its a natural occurance. If gravity was a rule, that could not exist.
The Rules As Written are a set of rules meant to frame your adventures. They're not there to define every aspect of absolutely everything. The idea is for the rules to be the rules. If you pick up your character from Bob's game, and go to Jimmy's game its going to play the same (barring houserules). The worlds may be entirely different, but its the same game.
To use an analogy...Do the rules of chess change between your livingroom and on a plane? No. The core rules of chess don't, the board may change, the pieces may be different (carved pieces and large board vs a magnetic board and magnetic pieces) but the rules of the game stay the same. The same holds true to D&D. Gravity is not a universal concept in D&D. How gravity works in one world, may not be the same as in another world. Making a rule that states that gravity exists like <insert blah blah blah> is silly.
The next is 'why is fall damage involved'? Well the answer goes back to the idea that the concept is there, and its going to be something that comes up. We're telling stories here, epics even. Someone is bound to be kicked off the walls of the castle and (hopefully its a NPC) fall and we need rules to figure that out. That in no way shape or form implies gravity. Simply that should an occurance happen, theres a rule to determine the outcome of it which is what the entire purpose of the rules is.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Okay. Who got theyselves reported???
ShadowProphet wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
This is starting to sound like a circular argument thread. I believe we will never close the gap between the two key points of view on this thread.
dafrca wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
Yunru wrote: