A recent thread has made me have some thoughts about rules lawyers, RAW, the social contract, & the aftermath of decisions at a Strict RAW table....and it got me thinking...
RAW as interpreted by shysters like DND Shorts, Treantmonk's Temple, & Pack Tactics on YouTube says that because you CAN do things, therefore you WILL & SHOULD, leading to a lot of people trying exploits because people like that say it's RAW...but at what point does things like turning into an Avatar of Auril with the Epic Boon of Fluid Form, Having a Giant Fly from the Figurine of Wonderous Power/a named NPC that has a stat block as a familiar, & similar chicanery go from "RAW this is possible & therefore, at your strictly RAW table, I should be OK to do this" to "Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah, Nyah, you can't stop me because you're a RAW table & can't homebrew! *PBLLTTH*".
Where is the line?
Because while I think this breaks some DMG stuff(Especially regarding the social contract of the game), others might argue that RAW is god & a strict RAW table must allow chicanery if it's RAW, otherwise..."You're a BAD/LYING DM" crops up.
So where's the line regarding RAW chicanery regarding legality & possibility turning into bad-faith interpretation/exploitation of RAW to "win"/show off?
At what point must the strict RAW DM make a homebrew rule just to counter ridiculous & showboat-y but RAW legal moves?
When Strict RAW is broken, how many splinters is the RAW allowed to shatter into, now that it has been?
If you kick the player, how do you argue against s*it-talking the rules lawyer does about you for breaking RAW against what you promised? How do you counter that?
Should the player be allowed to get away with chicanery lest they be technically right if you kick them?
My mind is abuzz with all the implications & scenarios regarding chicanery at a strict RAW table, & how to deal with it in a way that doesn't put the DM into a tough social dillema where the rules lawyering showoff is right that you broke RAW, but you kicking them is justified for breaking the social contract...
So...where's the line?
(Note:This isn't a response to that thread...I'm genuinely concerned for players & DMs who run into this trap, as it does happen)
I think one of the best additions to the 2024 PHB was the paragraph that basically boiled down to "yes we all know those YouTube channels exist but don't take the piss" because now the RAW *is* that those exploits only work if the DM allows them.
In my personal experience I've not had too many problems. The games I run for kids have a pattern of certain players watching a TikTok or a YT video of something and wanting to try it but they also realise I'm doing them a favour by DMing so don't push it. My adult game has a couple of players trying to push their luck but they do it with such wide grins they know they're pushing it and are OK when I say no (I do however love the rule of cool so they know I will occassional say yes if they do it once for the laughs but won't allow it week after week)
I think as with all things communication is the key
If its in bad faith then its immediate. I play with two min maxers and I don’t focus on the rules, I focus on the consequences. I point out if the DM over compensates for this, the rest of us are boned. And I was proven right twice. And that caused one of them to min max harder, because he doesn’t want to get whooped a second time by the same trick. So next time I’m expecting the boss fight to be 5 bosses, because we’ve first round KO’d two previous bosses, but a multi head hydra lasted 5 rounds
But if it is legal, now the grey area of unethical comes in. Acting unethical is about being within the rules so it is not cheating. But it does hit the original post of what is acceptable and what is not, within the legal rules. The phrase "common sense" is debased by those that want to stretch the interpretation of rules. The issue also is individual people looking for the competitive edge. Doing what ever they can do "legally/RAW" to give them that competitive edge.
Some people mistakenly go down that path, but when several people say "no" that is not "common sense", many reevaluate their position, see how it is a mistake and then join the majority. However, it is the select few individuals, that scream how what they are doing is legal, and insist their interpretation is legal, are the ones that are usually the most unethical and insist that their interpretation is correct. Without that unethical interpretation they are holding onto, they "lose" their competitive advantage.
It comes down to a simple phrase. Just because you can, does not mean you should.
The problem is that there is no objective way to define rules "gaming" that the rules gamers wont try to argue out of.
Ive had dm's who made weird off thr cuff calls that broke game balance, dms who had weird home bree rules they would impose mid campaign and mid combat, ive had dms straight up tell me they dont know the spells and will ban spells as they go along, and dms who had months of combat where not a single npc or monster failed a single saving throw all rolled behind their screen. What do you do as a player in that situation? You decide if that behavior is too much for you and you stay anf go along with it, or you leave and find a dm that fits you. I ended up leaving those campaigns when it became clear the dm was basically doing a dm-vs-player approach to the game.
I will power build a character because they can be fun and part of the game is to build something powerful and interesting. But i dont look for terminology loopholes, or whatever. I want to build legitimate charavters that follow the rules, and then i want to use them to bash monsters.
As a dm, i havent encountered too much in the way of bad faith players. But part of that is because i never dm complete strangers. I dm for friends, and sometimes those friends recommend someone to join that ive never met, so at most they are a friend of a friend.
The thing is, if i follow the rules and build a powerful character, those rules allow any other player to do the same. But if i am looking for some definitional loophole, and end up with a character way more powerful than the other players, then i end up forcing all the other players to break the same rules or become irrelevent in game. Thats where things start breaking down.
If all my players are acting in good faith, they can operate fairly independent of one another without one character dominating what happens to the entire party. When you get one murderhobo and the rest of the party are trying to play chaotic good, then the murderhobo is going to make it impossible for the rest of the party to have the game they want.
I started my vurrent campaign telling my players they are the heros of the campaign, saving the world and all that. If you wanna murderhobo everyone you meet, i will ask you to leave and you can find a dm who is running a campaign where that works with the party.
Its not even that muderhoboing is automatically bad. In an evil campagin or a one-shot combat encounter its fine. Its just figuring out what works for everyone, and that includes all the players and the dm. But it is the dms responsibility to make their expectations clear upfront so players know if they can find a way to play that fits in your world.
I think any line here will vary from table to table. One person’s fun is another person’s annoying and exploitative. So the answer is a good session 0 to figure it out.
Regardless of RAW says, the DM decides how to apply the rules at base. The concept of RAW is brought up in Sage Advice Compendium when explaining the Role of the Rules where WOTC insist a DM to guide their use and celebrate the DM as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t.
So How far can RAW rules lawyering go before it's trying to argue in bad faith for an exploit/show off? When the DM determine it cross a line into being exploitative, interfering with everyone else's fun, including DM. The DMG touch on this subject when Players Exploiting the Rules.
So if a player wish to use the statblock for a Boon or other game features in some fashion and the DM rules against it, then the player should respect the DM's decision.
Players Exploiting the Rules
Some players enjoy poring over the D&D rules and looking for optimal combinations. This kind of optimizing is part of the game, but it can cross a line into being exploitative, interfering with everyone else's fun.
Setting clear expectations is essential when dealing with this kind of rules exploitation. Bear these principles in mind:
Rules Aren't Physics.The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world. Don't let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn't define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round.
The Game Is Not an Economy. The rules of the game aren't intended to model a realistic economy, and players who look for loopholes that let them generate infinite wealth using combinations of spells are exploiting the rules.
Combat Is for Enemies.Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don't let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group's fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.
Outlining these principles can help hold players' exploits at bay. If a player persistently tries to twist the rules of the game, have a conversation with that player outside the game and ask them to stop.
In a discussion of RAW, it's only 'bad faith' if you're arguing a point that you don't think is correct. In an actual game, good player behavior when there's a component of RAW that you consider nonsensical or exploitative, and it actually matters, is to point it out and ask the DM how they want to handle it in their game.
"In a discussion of RAW, it's only 'bad faith' if you're arguing a point that you don't think is correct."
Eh. There are folks who absolutely do not understand the rules and are handing out absolutely incorrect information. Is it bad faith? Fake news? Misinformation? Does it matter?
There is a behavior i keep bumping into where certain people simply cannot admit a rule is poorly written. Rules Apologists? Is there a name for that? If a rule is vague, its vague. No need to rush in and defend it. If its overpowered, no need to twist some other rule into a pretzel do debuff the first one. If a rule is overly restrictive, no need to jump in and twist some other rule to handwave the problem.
Its extremely difficult to discuss problematic rules when some folks see criticism of a rule as a personal affront that needs defending.
Ive seen decades of rule changes. Its fine. Not a big deal. Untill someone makes it their mission to defend the existing rules as infallible.
Eh. There are folks who absolutely do not understand the rules and are handing out absolutely incorrect information. Is it bad faith? Fake news? Misinformation? Does it matter?
There's a considerable difference between being honestly mistaken and arguing in bad faith.
If it (the arguing/lawyering) is seriously holding up the game and/or ruining the enjoyment of other players (and yes the DM is also a player) then that's too far in my opinion. The rules exist for a reason, sure, but it's not possible to cover every situation with ironclad rules in a game that stakes a large part of its gameplay on imagination and open agency.
"In a discussion of RAW, it's only 'bad faith' if you're arguing a point that you don't think is correct."
All im trying to point out that your definition of bad faith relies on you being able to mind read whether the person thinks they are correct or not. For one, thats an impossible measure. For another, different people can have all sorts of different motivatiins to argue the rules that are entirely bad faith and have nothjng to do with whether they think they are "correct" or not.
Ive run into multiple people in the last month alone who are religious zealot followers of the rules as written. Some cannot allow someone to point out a potential issue without twisting other rules into pretzels to try and justify the rules being infallible. Some seem to have an allergic reaction to anything posted thats obviously meant to be silly or fun.
if your test of "bad faith" is to mind read whether they think the rules they are pushing is "correct", then youre going to run into the problem of "i will know it when i see it" on one side and missing a lot of bad faith nonsense that has nothing to do with whether someone has the rules "correct" and whethrr someone is using the rules like a cudgel with which to beat up comments they dont like and feel big and strong.
All im trying to point out that your definition of bad faith relies on you being able to mind read whether the person thinks they are correct or not.
I read the original question as being related to proper player behavior. In which case, I don't need to know whether other people's behavior is in bad faith, I need to know whether my behavior is in bad faith. However, if I'm trying to judge whether someone else is arguing in bad faith... yes, I need to make guesses about their mental state, and I can be wrong.
Eh. There are folks who absolutely do not understand the rules and are handing out absolutely incorrect information. Is it bad faith? Fake news? Misinformation? Does it matter?
There's a considerable difference between being honestly mistaken and arguing in bad faith.
The difference is how does the person react when they find out they are mistaken. If they are trying to hold a competitive advantage and will do anything to keep that advantage, vice someone who understands the error and recants.
"The line" is both impossible to objectively determine and extremely simple. There is no "impartial and objective" measure of where the line should be that works in ANY case, let alone all cases.
That said? There's a very simple test. "Does [proposed nonsense combo] make the game worse for anyone at the table including the DM? If so, no."
The game is meant to be a good time for everyone involved. Super dumb meme combos generally reduce the fun for everyone else who isn't the rules gonk, and if so then they have no place at the table. If the dumb meme combo somehow has everyone laughing and excited instead? Cool. Let it ride. If it has even one player frowning and pulling back from the game though, time to talk about it.
My personal belief is that once the action stops making sense in the world of the game and only exists/works because of rules text, the action qualifies as Dumb Meme Combo and should be nuked from orbit. But other tables don't focus nearly as much on the tale of the table, so that rule doesn't work for everyone.
"Does this ruin other people's fun?" DOES work for everyone. And if your meme jockey won't listen to "this isn't fun for anyone but you" as a justification for the call, they should probably be disinvited from the table.
A recent thread has made me have some thoughts about rules lawyers, RAW, the social contract, & the aftermath of decisions at a Strict RAW table....and it got me thinking...
RAW as interpreted by shysters like DND Shorts, Treantmonk's Temple, & Pack Tactics on YouTube says that because you CAN do things, therefore you WILL & SHOULD, leading to a lot of people trying exploits because people like that say it's RAW...but at what point does things like turning into an Avatar of Auril with the Epic Boon of Fluid Form, Having a Giant Fly from the Figurine of Wonderous Power/a named NPC that has a stat block as a familiar, & similar chicanery go from "RAW this is possible & therefore, at your strictly RAW table, I should be OK to do this" to "Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah, Nyah, you can't stop me because you're a RAW table & can't homebrew! *PBLLTTH*".
Where is the line?
The real line is that there is no such thing as a "strictly RAW table". You get into "this is not in the text, and so ultimately up to GM interpretation", pretty much as soon as any two abilities start interacting. (And this gets confused by people asserting that their particular interpretation must be RAW, because it's the way they read the rules.)
D&D isn't MtG; it doesn't need a strictly-defined set of interpretations that can be reliably applied to all situations.
Which is good, because it literally cannot have one. It is too open ended.
While it's sometimes useful to figure out what the rules actually say, it is an extremely limited tool, because they often don't say anything. And it's very easy to read your personal preferences into that absence.
So, if there is no "RAW table", and precious little "RAW", what is there? There's whether the people at the table are more-or-less on the same page, and that has far less to do with RAW, or exploits thereof, than in agreement as to what you all want out of the game. And it's completely legit to ask a player to leave if they're not fitting the vibe and won't change, even if everything they're doing is strictly within the unambiguous rules.
(And yes, there does seem to be an ecosystem of Youtube/whatever creators who try to treat D&D like it's a video game, with exploits and optimal builds. I don't watch them, and I've never run into anybody in person who tries to play like that, so I can't judge whether that's a problem of any significance. It is my belief that it mostly comes up in internet discussions, rather than actual play.)
(It is also my belief that most of the builds aren't actually "strict RAW" -- there will be at least one point of interpretation in them, and those that actually pass that bar are going to be a lot of convolutions for minimal practical advantage.)
A recent thread has made me have some thoughts about rules lawyers, RAW, the social contract, & the aftermath of decisions at a Strict RAW table....and it got me thinking...
....
Where is the line?
Ok easy, page one of the 2024 DMG:
The DM gets to play many fun roles:
Actor. The DM plays the monsters, choosing their actions and rolling dice for their attacks. The DM also plays all the people the characters meet.
Director. Like the director of a movie, the DM decides (and describes) what the players’ characters encounter in the course of an adventure. The DM is also responsible for the pace of a play session and for creating situations that facilitate fun.
Improviser. A big part of being the DM is deciding how to apply the rules as you go and imagining the consequences of the characters’ actions in a way that will make the game fun for everyone.
Referee. When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules.
Storyteller. The DM crafts adventures, setting situations in front of the characters that entice them to explore and interact with the game world.
Teacher. It’s often the DM’s job to teach new players how to play the game.
Worldbuilder. The DM creates the world where the game’s adventures take place. Even if you’re using a published setting, you get to make it yours.
in the 2014 DM it says this:
The Dungeon Master (DM) is the creative force behind a D&D game. The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story. An adventure typically hinges on the successful completion of a quest, and can be as short as a single game session. Longer adventures might embroil players in great conflicts that require multiple game sessions to resolve. When strung together, these adventures form an ongoing campaign. A D&D campaign can include dozens of adventures and last for months or years.
A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other players’ characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what’s happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected. As an actor, the DM plays the roles of the monsters and supporting characters, breathing life into them. And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.
Inventing, writing, storytelling, improvising, acting, refereeing — every DM handles these roles differently, and you’ll probably enjoy some more than others. It helps to remember that Dungeons & Dragons is a hobby, and being the DM should be fun. Focus on the aspects you enjoy and downplay the rest. For example, if you don’t like creating your own adventures, you can use published ones. You can also lean on the other players to help you with rules mastery and world-building.
The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn’t to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you’re lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded.
The important parts:
Referee. When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules.
and more importantly:
The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game.
As DM I have on more than one situation had to rule against RAW because it broke the game in a way that took the fun out of D&D. Not giving an example I have dealt with but an example in similar nature.
The classic two bags of holding trick. If the players do decide to do this to bypass the game in anyway at all. I will either ruin the game in other ways, or flat out disallow it. I also inform the players ahead of time I find this kind of behavior just as bad as dice fudging. Now at the same time I will rule in favor of a gaming breaking event even if it's not in the rules if it is cinematic and improves the game. ie no consintration hunters mark after level 7. But no on the bag of holding trick.
It really varies by your relationship with the DM and table. There is no one right answer.
At mine, you can ask any question, so long as you're polite and respectful. You can even query my rulings. However, once I feel like we're distracting from the game, I'll put a line under it, tell you how it is, and move on. Any discussion after that point is just rude and being a jerk. I don't want to get bogged down over this minor point, I've ruled the way I have, it's time to drop it and play D&D. There are upto 7 other people at the table whose time you're wasting. I tend to take a very pro-player stance when it comes to resolving rules issues when it has lasting consequences, so if we're arguing, there's no excuse.
I have one player that doesn't always understand that line and tries arguing beyond the acceptable point. Another player who is in a position of authority over them just tells him to stop when I start displaying my cues of "...and that's enough", so our table rarely has any significant issues.
When people want to move on rather than debate, that's the point it becomes rules-lawyering, annoying, whatever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The classic two bags of holding trick. If the players do decide to do this to bypass the game in anyway at all. I will either ruin the game in other ways, or flat out disallow it.
As a side point, I've never understood the two bag of holding meme being even an issue, because it first requires you to have two bags of holding, and by the time that's reasonably likely (tier 3, generally) half the things you send to the void with a bag of holding explosion will just plane shift back.
The bag of holding bomb is raw. And if it bothers you that much, i assume it is in your list of homebrew rules. Its in mine, and the list is posted where my players can peruse it whenever they wwnt.
I only ask because i have had dms with extremely strong opinion about a thing that was raw, but didnt tel anyone till mid campaign and they blew up about it.
They insta-banned goodberry on my ranger a couple months in. It was... odd to say the least.
Good faith would suggest its the dms responsibility to let folks know their homebrew chamges to rules
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A recent thread has made me have some thoughts about rules lawyers, RAW, the social contract, & the aftermath of decisions at a Strict RAW table....and it got me thinking...
RAW as interpreted by shysters like DND Shorts, Treantmonk's Temple, & Pack Tactics on YouTube says that because you CAN do things, therefore you WILL & SHOULD, leading to a lot of people trying exploits because people like that say it's RAW...but at what point does things like turning into an Avatar of Auril with the Epic Boon of Fluid Form, Having a Giant Fly from the Figurine of Wonderous Power/a named NPC that has a stat block as a familiar, & similar chicanery go from "RAW this is possible & therefore, at your strictly RAW table, I should be OK to do this" to "Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah-Nyah, Nyah, you can't stop me because you're a RAW table & can't homebrew! *PBLLTTH*".
Where is the line?
Because while I think this breaks some DMG stuff(Especially regarding the social contract of the game), others might argue that RAW is god & a strict RAW table must allow chicanery if it's RAW, otherwise..."You're a BAD/LYING DM" crops up.
So where's the line regarding RAW chicanery regarding legality & possibility turning into bad-faith interpretation/exploitation of RAW to "win"/show off?
At what point must the strict RAW DM make a homebrew rule just to counter ridiculous & showboat-y but RAW legal moves?
When Strict RAW is broken, how many splinters is the RAW allowed to shatter into, now that it has been?
If you kick the player, how do you argue against s*it-talking the rules lawyer does about you for breaking RAW against what you promised? How do you counter that?
Should the player be allowed to get away with chicanery lest they be technically right if you kick them?
My mind is abuzz with all the implications & scenarios regarding chicanery at a strict RAW table, & how to deal with it in a way that doesn't put the DM into a tough social dillema where the rules lawyering showoff is right that you broke RAW, but you kicking them is justified for breaking the social contract...
So...where's the line?
(Note:This isn't a response to that thread...I'm genuinely concerned for players & DMs who run into this trap, as it does happen)
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I think one of the best additions to the 2024 PHB was the paragraph that basically boiled down to "yes we all know those YouTube channels exist but don't take the piss" because now the RAW *is* that those exploits only work if the DM allows them.
In my personal experience I've not had too many problems. The games I run for kids have a pattern of certain players watching a TikTok or a YT video of something and wanting to try it but they also realise I'm doing them a favour by DMing so don't push it. My adult game has a couple of players trying to push their luck but they do it with such wide grins they know they're pushing it and are OK when I say no (I do however love the rule of cool so they know I will occassional say yes if they do it once for the laughs but won't allow it week after week)
I think as with all things communication is the key
If its in bad faith then its immediate. I play with two min maxers and I don’t focus on the rules, I focus on the consequences. I point out if the DM over compensates for this, the rest of us are boned. And I was proven right twice. And that caused one of them to min max harder, because he doesn’t want to get whooped a second time by the same trick. So next time I’m expecting the boss fight to be 5 bosses, because we’ve first round KO’d two previous bosses, but a multi head hydra lasted 5 rounds
This thread is definitely about a huge grey area.
If it is not in the rules at all, it is cheating.
But if it is legal, now the grey area of unethical comes in. Acting unethical is about being within the rules so it is not cheating. But it does hit the original post of what is acceptable and what is not, within the legal rules. The phrase "common sense" is debased by those that want to stretch the interpretation of rules. The issue also is individual people looking for the competitive edge. Doing what ever they can do "legally/RAW" to give them that competitive edge.
Some people mistakenly go down that path, but when several people say "no" that is not "common sense", many reevaluate their position, see how it is a mistake and then join the majority. However, it is the select few individuals, that scream how what they are doing is legal, and insist their interpretation is legal, are the ones that are usually the most unethical and insist that their interpretation is correct. Without that unethical interpretation they are holding onto, they "lose" their competitive advantage.
It comes down to a simple phrase. Just because you can, does not mean you should.
The problem is that there is no objective way to define rules "gaming" that the rules gamers wont try to argue out of.
Ive had dm's who made weird off thr cuff calls that broke game balance, dms who had weird home bree rules they would impose mid campaign and mid combat, ive had dms straight up tell me they dont know the spells and will ban spells as they go along, and dms who had months of combat where not a single npc or monster failed a single saving throw all rolled behind their screen. What do you do as a player in that situation? You decide if that behavior is too much for you and you stay anf go along with it, or you leave and find a dm that fits you. I ended up leaving those campaigns when it became clear the dm was basically doing a dm-vs-player approach to the game.
I will power build a character because they can be fun and part of the game is to build something powerful and interesting. But i dont look for terminology loopholes, or whatever. I want to build legitimate charavters that follow the rules, and then i want to use them to bash monsters.
As a dm, i havent encountered too much in the way of bad faith players. But part of that is because i never dm complete strangers. I dm for friends, and sometimes those friends recommend someone to join that ive never met, so at most they are a friend of a friend.
The thing is, if i follow the rules and build a powerful character, those rules allow any other player to do the same. But if i am looking for some definitional loophole, and end up with a character way more powerful than the other players, then i end up forcing all the other players to break the same rules or become irrelevent in game. Thats where things start breaking down.
If all my players are acting in good faith, they can operate fairly independent of one another without one character dominating what happens to the entire party. When you get one murderhobo and the rest of the party are trying to play chaotic good, then the murderhobo is going to make it impossible for the rest of the party to have the game they want.
I started my vurrent campaign telling my players they are the heros of the campaign, saving the world and all that. If you wanna murderhobo everyone you meet, i will ask you to leave and you can find a dm who is running a campaign where that works with the party.
Its not even that muderhoboing is automatically bad. In an evil campagin or a one-shot combat encounter its fine. Its just figuring out what works for everyone, and that includes all the players and the dm. But it is the dms responsibility to make their expectations clear upfront so players know if they can find a way to play that fits in your world.
I think any line here will vary from table to table. One person’s fun is another person’s annoying and exploitative. So the answer is a good session 0 to figure it out.
Regardless of RAW says, the DM decides how to apply the rules at base. The concept of RAW is brought up in Sage Advice Compendium when explaining the Role of the Rules where WOTC insist a DM to guide their use and celebrate the DM as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t.
So How far can RAW rules lawyering go before it's trying to argue in bad faith for an exploit/show off? When the DM determine it cross a line into being exploitative, interfering with everyone else's fun, including DM. The DMG touch on this subject when Players Exploiting the Rules.
So if a player wish to use the statblock for a Boon or other game features in some fashion and the DM rules against it, then the player should respect the DM's decision.
In a discussion of RAW, it's only 'bad faith' if you're arguing a point that you don't think is correct. In an actual game, good player behavior when there's a component of RAW that you consider nonsensical or exploitative, and it actually matters, is to point it out and ask the DM how they want to handle it in their game.
"In a discussion of RAW, it's only 'bad faith' if you're arguing a point that you don't think is correct."
Eh. There are folks who absolutely do not understand the rules and are handing out absolutely incorrect information. Is it bad faith? Fake news? Misinformation? Does it matter?
There is a behavior i keep bumping into where certain people simply cannot admit a rule is poorly written. Rules Apologists? Is there a name for that? If a rule is vague, its vague. No need to rush in and defend it. If its overpowered, no need to twist some other rule into a pretzel do debuff the first one. If a rule is overly restrictive, no need to jump in and twist some other rule to handwave the problem.
Its extremely difficult to discuss problematic rules when some folks see criticism of a rule as a personal affront that needs defending.
Ive seen decades of rule changes. Its fine. Not a big deal. Untill someone makes it their mission to defend the existing rules as infallible.
There's a considerable difference between being honestly mistaken and arguing in bad faith.
If it (the arguing/lawyering) is seriously holding up the game and/or ruining the enjoyment of other players (and yes the DM is also a player) then that's too far in my opinion. The rules exist for a reason, sure, but it's not possible to cover every situation with ironclad rules in a game that stakes a large part of its gameplay on imagination and open agency.
"In a discussion of RAW, it's only 'bad faith' if you're arguing a point that you don't think is correct."
All im trying to point out that your definition of bad faith relies on you being able to mind read whether the person thinks they are correct or not. For one, thats an impossible measure. For another, different people can have all sorts of different motivatiins to argue the rules that are entirely bad faith and have nothjng to do with whether they think they are "correct" or not.
Ive run into multiple people in the last month alone who are religious zealot followers of the rules as written. Some cannot allow someone to point out a potential issue without twisting other rules into pretzels to try and justify the rules being infallible. Some seem to have an allergic reaction to anything posted thats obviously meant to be silly or fun.
if your test of "bad faith" is to mind read whether they think the rules they are pushing is "correct", then youre going to run into the problem of "i will know it when i see it" on one side and missing a lot of bad faith nonsense that has nothing to do with whether someone has the rules "correct" and whethrr someone is using the rules like a cudgel with which to beat up comments they dont like and feel big and strong.
This forum needs an actual Blocking festure.
I read the original question as being related to proper player behavior. In which case, I don't need to know whether other people's behavior is in bad faith, I need to know whether my behavior is in bad faith. However, if I'm trying to judge whether someone else is arguing in bad faith... yes, I need to make guesses about their mental state, and I can be wrong.
The difference is how does the person react when they find out they are mistaken. If they are trying to hold a competitive advantage and will do anything to keep that advantage, vice someone who understands the error and recants.
"The line" is both impossible to objectively determine and extremely simple. There is no "impartial and objective" measure of where the line should be that works in ANY case, let alone all cases.
That said? There's a very simple test. "Does [proposed nonsense combo] make the game worse for anyone at the table including the DM? If so, no."
The game is meant to be a good time for everyone involved. Super dumb meme combos generally reduce the fun for everyone else who isn't the rules gonk, and if so then they have no place at the table. If the dumb meme combo somehow has everyone laughing and excited instead? Cool. Let it ride. If it has even one player frowning and pulling back from the game though, time to talk about it.
My personal belief is that once the action stops making sense in the world of the game and only exists/works because of rules text, the action qualifies as Dumb Meme Combo and should be nuked from orbit. But other tables don't focus nearly as much on the tale of the table, so that rule doesn't work for everyone.
"Does this ruin other people's fun?" DOES work for everyone. And if your meme jockey won't listen to "this isn't fun for anyone but you" as a justification for the call, they should probably be disinvited from the table.
Please do not contact or message me.
The real line is that there is no such thing as a "strictly RAW table". You get into "this is not in the text, and so ultimately up to GM interpretation", pretty much as soon as any two abilities start interacting. (And this gets confused by people asserting that their particular interpretation must be RAW, because it's the way they read the rules.)
D&D isn't MtG; it doesn't need a strictly-defined set of interpretations that can be reliably applied to all situations.
Which is good, because it literally cannot have one. It is too open ended.
While it's sometimes useful to figure out what the rules actually say, it is an extremely limited tool, because they often don't say anything. And it's very easy to read your personal preferences into that absence.
So, if there is no "RAW table", and precious little "RAW", what is there? There's whether the people at the table are more-or-less on the same page, and that has far less to do with RAW, or exploits thereof, than in agreement as to what you all want out of the game. And it's completely legit to ask a player to leave if they're not fitting the vibe and won't change, even if everything they're doing is strictly within the unambiguous rules.
(And yes, there does seem to be an ecosystem of Youtube/whatever creators who try to treat D&D like it's a video game, with exploits and optimal builds. I don't watch them, and I've never run into anybody in person who tries to play like that, so I can't judge whether that's a problem of any significance. It is my belief that it mostly comes up in internet discussions, rather than actual play.)
(It is also my belief that most of the builds aren't actually "strict RAW" -- there will be at least one point of interpretation in them, and those that actually pass that bar are going to be a lot of convolutions for minimal practical advantage.)
Ok easy, page one of the 2024 DMG:
in the 2014 DM it says this:
The important parts:
Referee. When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules.
and more importantly:
The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game.
As DM I have on more than one situation had to rule against RAW because it broke the game in a way that took the fun out of D&D. Not giving an example I have dealt with but an example in similar nature.
The classic two bags of holding trick. If the players do decide to do this to bypass the game in anyway at all. I will either ruin the game in other ways, or flat out disallow it. I also inform the players ahead of time I find this kind of behavior just as bad as dice fudging. Now at the same time I will rule in favor of a gaming breaking event even if it's not in the rules if it is cinematic and improves the game. ie no consintration hunters mark after level 7. But no on the bag of holding trick.
It really varies by your relationship with the DM and table. There is no one right answer.
At mine, you can ask any question, so long as you're polite and respectful. You can even query my rulings. However, once I feel like we're distracting from the game, I'll put a line under it, tell you how it is, and move on. Any discussion after that point is just rude and being a jerk. I don't want to get bogged down over this minor point, I've ruled the way I have, it's time to drop it and play D&D. There are upto 7 other people at the table whose time you're wasting. I tend to take a very pro-player stance when it comes to resolving rules issues when it has lasting consequences, so if we're arguing, there's no excuse.
I have one player that doesn't always understand that line and tries arguing beyond the acceptable point. Another player who is in a position of authority over them just tells him to stop when I start displaying my cues of "...and that's enough", so our table rarely has any significant issues.
When people want to move on rather than debate, that's the point it becomes rules-lawyering, annoying, whatever.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
As a side point, I've never understood the two bag of holding meme being even an issue, because it first requires you to have two bags of holding, and by the time that's reasonably likely (tier 3, generally) half the things you send to the void with a bag of holding explosion will just plane shift back.
The bag of holding bomb is raw. And if it bothers you that much, i assume it is in your list of homebrew rules. Its in mine, and the list is posted where my players can peruse it whenever they wwnt.
I only ask because i have had dms with extremely strong opinion about a thing that was raw, but didnt tel anyone till mid campaign and they blew up about it.
They insta-banned goodberry on my ranger a couple months in. It was... odd to say the least.
Good faith would suggest its the dms responsibility to let folks know their homebrew chamges to rules