So this topic came up in another thread that I had created and that got me wondering what other people felt on the subject matter-- that is if you have an opinion.
Do you feel that the Sage Advice Compendium acts as RAW to existing rules or RAI?
I'm going to say RAW, because I feel "neither" implies it is less than RAI, not more.
It is somewhere in between. RAI is what the devs intended the rule to mean, but their own interpretations of the rules are known to change from time to time (and the most recent is used as RAI). SAC is an official compilation of RAI that the company as a whole thinks should be the rules. SAc gets added to occasionally, but never contradicted itself (to my knowledge).
As long as an obvious interpretation of the printed RAW and the SAC agree with each other, I consider that the true/correct RAW. When the SAC has to use different language to explain a ruling the RAW doesn't directly support, I consider that "official RAI" to be taken as seriously as RAW in DM decision making, but not used for discussing RAW in forums.
I think I pretty much agree with DxJxC. The rules say what they are and that is all there is to RAW, but SAC is a list of "official rulings" (It says so right in the intro). Official rulings therefore provide the designer's way to interpret what the rulebooks say -- providing the way that the game is supposed to correctly run.
Considering that most of SAC is written as the most fair and obvious interpretation of a particular rule, I generally don't see a reason to deviate from those rulings. If you are ruling differently than SAC then that might still fit within the words of the rules, but it is probably a bad ruling.
And who cares if it is RAW or RAI? All that really matters is if the ruling at the table is a good one or a bad one.
I think formally published SAC is RAW (even if just online in the summary they have), but informal SAC (tweet replies, that kind of thing) are more RAI.
The SAC is the "Sage Advice Compendium" there is only the official one.
Other tweets are "Sage Advice" but not compendium (SAC).
Here is what Wizards of the Coast, the publishers of D&D 5e and all of its official rule books, says about the Sage Advice Compendium:
Official Rulings Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here.
So the Sage Advice Compendium represents official rulings from Wizards on the Coast on how the rules of the game are to be interpreted. Hence they are official rules of D&D 5e. Of course, any DM is able to ignore the rules or the rulings, but then they are deviating from the official rules of the game.
I think it's limited RAI. What I mean is, it's the Rules As Intended By Whoever Is Involved Directly With Sage Advice. I'm not confident that includes everybody who's otherwise involved with rules publishing. So I don't consider it full RAI. I guess that opinion could change with new evidence.
In the case of the tweets, I consider them Rules As Intended By Jeremy Crawford, which... Nah. There's a good reason the D&D rules aren't written by just one guy.
Anyway, I think OP is showing some real bias here. "RAW which would supersede RAI if there is a discussion of validity?" Only if you're a robot. This game is intended to be run by humans, who have the ability to interpret and modify stuff as they go, and we all know that it would be dreadfully boring if that wasn't the case, so why pretend? I respect RAW loopholes insofar as I consider them to be examples of my players being clever. I don't respect them simply because they're immutable fact that I have to respect because otherwise I'm not actually playing D&D. That's nonsense. Everyone has to find their preferred balance of "game fiction" vs "rules logic," (which is usually the actual conflict in RAI vs RAW debates), and I think it's really unhealthy and unhelpful to imply that the latter holds ultimate supremacy.
I think it's limited RAI. What I mean is, it's the Rules As Intended By Whoever Is Involved Directly With Sage Advice. I'm not confident that includes everybody who's otherwise involved with rules publishing. So I don't consider it full RAI. I guess that opinion could change with new evidence.
In the case of the tweets, I consider them Rules As Intended By Jeremy Crawford, which... Nah. There's a good reason the D&D rules aren't written by just one guy.
Anyway, I think OP is showing some real bias here. "RAW which would supersede RAI if there is a discussion of validity?" Only if you're a robot. This game is intended to be run by humans, who have the ability to interpret and modify stuff as they go, and we all know that it would be dreadfully boring if that wasn't the case, so why pretend? I respect RAW loopholes insofar as I consider them to be examples of my players being clever. I don't respect them simply because they're immutable fact that I have to respect because otherwise I'm not actually playing D&D. That's nonsense. Everyone has to find their preferred balance of "game fiction" vs "rules logic," (which is usually the actual conflict in RAI vs RAW debates), and I think it's really unhealthy and unhelpful to imply that the latter holds ultimate supremacy.
Actually, I have no bias, as I'm trying to come to a decision myself on where it stands. The point of this thread was more to get a gauge on what side of the fence-- if any-- people feel on this document of information. I appreciate the feedback though and may go back and reword that sentence.
I think it's limited RAI. What I mean is, it's the Rules As Intended By Whoever Is Involved Directly With Sage Advice. I'm not confident that includes everybody who's otherwise involved with rules publishing. So I don't consider it full RAI. I guess that opinion could change with new evidence.
In the case of the tweets, I consider them Rules As Intended By Jeremy Crawford, which... Nah. There's a good reason the D&D rules aren't written by just one guy.
So rules as intended by 1 person is RAI, but official rulings compiled presented by the rules team of the developing company as a whole is... less?
I just fail to follow your reasoning that an official document made by the same company as the rulebooks themselves is less intended than 1 persons opinion. Could you explain again?
Anyway, I think OP is showing some real bias here. "RAW which would supersede RAI if there is a discussion of validity?" Only if you're a robot. This game is intended to be run by humans, who have the ability to interpret and modify stuff as they go, and we all know that it would be dreadfully boring if that wasn't the case, so why pretend? I respect RAW loopholes insofar as I consider them to be examples of my players being clever. I don't respect them simply because they're immutable fact that I have to respect because otherwise I'm not actually playing D&D. That's nonsense. Everyone has to find their preferred balance of "game fiction" vs "rules logic," (which is usually the actual conflict in RAI vs RAW debates), and I think it's really unhealthy and unhelpful to imply that the latter holds ultimate supremacy.
Actually, I have no bias, as I'm trying to come to a decision myself on where it stands. The point of this thread was more to get a gauge on what side of the fence-- if any-- people feel on this document of information. I appreciate the feedback though and may go back and reword that sentence.
You have no bias about the SAC, but your original post does have a bias of RAW over RAI. Which I get. The rules forums can hardly objectively discuss every group play style and house rules, so we discuss RAW, as it is the baseline from which all play variations arise. But RAW should not take precedence over what is fun for the group as a whole.
Anyway, I think OP is showing some real bias here. "RAW which would supersede RAI if there is a discussion of validity?" Only if you're a robot. This game is intended to be run by humans, who have the ability to interpret and modify stuff as they go, and we all know that it would be dreadfully boring if that wasn't the case, so why pretend? I respect RAW loopholes insofar as I consider them to be examples of my players being clever. I don't respect them simply because they're immutable fact that I have to respect because otherwise I'm not actually playing D&D. That's nonsense. Everyone has to find their preferred balance of "game fiction" vs "rules logic," (which is usually the actual conflict in RAI vs RAW debates), and I think it's really unhealthy and unhelpful to imply that the latter holds ultimate supremacy.
Actually, I have no bias, as I'm trying to come to a decision myself on where it stands. The point of this thread was more to get a gauge on what side of the fence-- if any-- people feel on this document of information. I appreciate the feedback though and may go back and reword that sentence.
You have no bias about the SAC, but your original post does have a bias of RAW over RAI. Which I get. The rules forums can hardly objectively discuss every group play style and house rules, so we discuss RAW, as it is the baseline from which all play variations arise. But RAW should not take precedence over what is fun for the group as a whole.
I think it's limited RAI. What I mean is, it's the Rules As Intended By Whoever Is Involved Directly With Sage Advice. I'm not confident that includes everybody who's otherwise involved with rules publishing. So I don't consider it full RAI. I guess that opinion could change with new evidence.
In the case of the tweets, I consider them Rules As Intended By Jeremy Crawford, which... Nah. There's a good reason the D&D rules aren't written by just one guy.
So rules as intended by 1 person is RAI, but official rulings compiled presented by the rules team of the developing company as a whole is... less?
I just fail to follow your reasoning that an official document made by the same company as the rulebooks themselves is less intended than 1 persons opinion. Could you explain again?
No, you misunderstand me. J Craw's tweets are even less representative of the intentions of the entire design team. In terms of what I consider official, it would go like this: Tweets < SAC < Somehow getting clarification from the entire team.
It's possible that the SAC * is* clarification from the entire design team. But that hasn't been my impression of it.
It's possible that the SAC * is* clarification from the entire design team. But that hasn't been my impression of it.
The SAC is official rulings from WoTC, the employers of the design team. I suppose the design team could disagree with their employers, but that doesn't change the official nature of the SAC.
I agree with you that a DM should feel free to change or interpret the rules as they see fit. But I also think that they cannot claim to be relying on the official rules when their decision contradicts either the rule books or the SAC, but then why should they care? They run the game they way they want to. But rules-lawyering players do not have a leg to stand on when they try to claim RAW justification for a rules interpretation that is directly contradicted by the SAC. Their DM could go along, but that's entirely up to them to decide; there is nothing in the official rules that suggests that they should.
By definition, the Sage Advice Compendium (SAC) cannot be RAW, as it is rulings and not the rules themselves.
As to RAI or Neither, that depends on what you consider RAI to mean.
To a vast majority of the community I have seen opinions from, RAI means Rules As Intended. The problem with this is that WOTC have never presented intent, only rulings made long after the original text was published. To have intent, we need to see design notes (early drafts, maybe with statements of function; literal statements of intent at time of drafting; pre-existing texts used as examples). As none have ever been presented, we by definition have no intent.
Personally, I view RAI to mean Rules As officially Interpreted, given that best describes such texts. In that vein, the SAC is closest to RAI, but I voted neither, due to the majority sourcing for the SAC.
By looking through the SAC and the Sage Advice twitter feed (available also via sageadvice.eu), it is clear that many of the SAC entries are directly from Jeremy Crawford, who has a history of self-contradiction, snarky non-answers, and simple repeats of the text in question (which answers/explains nothing). In addition, we have never been presented with who explicitly wrote each text in question, having to trust that either Crawford wrote most of it (highly unlikely), or that he is relaying the opinion of the true author (debatable given his non-answers).
In general, whether it is the SAC or the Sage Advice twitter, I don't consider any of it as more than the opinions of those who explicitly wrote the rulings, since we have nothing to know who wrote each text.
No, you misunderstand me. J Craw's tweets are even less representative of the intentions of the entire design team. In terms of what I consider official, it would go like this: Tweets < SAC < Somehow getting clarification from the entire team.
It's possible that the SAC * is* clarification from the entire design team. But that hasn't been my impression of it.
Gotcha.
The SAC is as much a clarification from the entire design team as any published book or official errata. It is just rulings instead of rules and gets updated occasionally. Not being called errata and represented in the actual books is the only thing keeping it from truly being RAW.
So this topic came up in another thread that I had created and that got me wondering what other people felt on the subject matter-- that is if you have an opinion.
Do you feel that the Sage Advice Compendium acts as RAW to existing rules or RAI?
I'd love to hear people's opinions on the matter.
Bearing in mind RAW is our term, not WOTC's, the SAC is by definition RAW, because it's an official release from WOTC attempting to convey their RAI, which is what RAW is. The PHB, the DMG, the SAC - all of these have equal status. Likewise, by definition the SAC can't be RAI, because WOTC wrote it down.
So this topic came up in another thread that I had created and that got me wondering what other people felt on the subject matter-- that is if you have an opinion.
Do you feel that the Sage Advice Compendium acts as RAW to existing rules or RAI?
I'd love to hear people's opinions on the matter.
Bearing in mind RAW is our term, not WOTC's, the SAC is by definition RAW, because it's an official release from WOTC attempting to convey their RAI, which is what RAW is. The PHB, the DMG, the SAC - all of these have equal status. Likewise, by definition the SAC can't be RAI, because WOTC wrote it down.
When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.
RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.
RAF. Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to their players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.” We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players. Sometimes my rules answers will include advice on achieving the RAF interpretation of a rule for your group.
I recommend a healthy mix of RAW, RAI, and RAF!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So this topic came up in another thread that I had created and that got me wondering what other people felt on the subject matter-- that is if you have an opinion.
Do you feel that the Sage Advice Compendium acts as RAW to existing rules or RAI?
I'd love to hear people's opinions on the matter.
I'm going to say RAW, because I feel "neither" implies it is less than RAI, not more.
It is somewhere in between. RAI is what the devs intended the rule to mean, but their own interpretations of the rules are known to change from time to time (and the most recent is used as RAI). SAC is an official compilation of RAI that the company as a whole thinks should be the rules. SAc gets added to occasionally, but never contradicted itself (to my knowledge).
As long as an obvious interpretation of the printed RAW and the SAC agree with each other, I consider that the true/correct RAW. When the SAC has to use different language to explain a ruling the RAW doesn't directly support, I consider that "official RAI" to be taken as seriously as RAW in DM decision making, but not used for discussing RAW in forums.
I think I pretty much agree with DxJxC. The rules say what they are and that is all there is to RAW, but SAC is a list of "official rulings" (It says so right in the intro). Official rulings therefore provide the designer's way to interpret what the rulebooks say -- providing the way that the game is supposed to correctly run.
Considering that most of SAC is written as the most fair and obvious interpretation of a particular rule, I generally don't see a reason to deviate from those rulings. If you are ruling differently than SAC then that might still fit within the words of the rules, but it is probably a bad ruling.
And who cares if it is RAW or RAI? All that really matters is if the ruling at the table is a good one or a bad one.
The SAC is the "Sage Advice Compendium" there is only the official one.
Other tweets are "Sage Advice" but not compendium (SAC).
Here is what Wizards of the Coast, the publishers of D&D 5e and all of its official rule books, says about the Sage Advice Compendium:
Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here.
So the Sage Advice Compendium represents official rulings from Wizards on the Coast on how the rules of the game are to be interpreted. Hence they are official rules of D&D 5e. Of course, any DM is able to ignore the rules or the rulings, but then they are deviating from the official rules of the game.
I think it's limited RAI. What I mean is, it's the Rules As Intended By Whoever Is Involved Directly With Sage Advice. I'm not confident that includes everybody who's otherwise involved with rules publishing. So I don't consider it full RAI. I guess that opinion could change with new evidence.
In the case of the tweets, I consider them Rules As Intended By Jeremy Crawford, which... Nah. There's a good reason the D&D rules aren't written by just one guy.
Anyway, I think OP is showing some real bias here. "RAW which would supersede RAI if there is a discussion of validity?" Only if you're a robot. This game is intended to be run by humans, who have the ability to interpret and modify stuff as they go, and we all know that it would be dreadfully boring if that wasn't the case, so why pretend? I respect RAW loopholes insofar as I consider them to be examples of my players being clever. I don't respect them simply because they're immutable fact that I have to respect because otherwise I'm not actually playing D&D. That's nonsense. Everyone has to find their preferred balance of "game fiction" vs "rules logic," (which is usually the actual conflict in RAI vs RAW debates), and I think it's really unhealthy and unhelpful to imply that the latter holds ultimate supremacy.
Actually, I have no bias, as I'm trying to come to a decision myself on where it stands. The point of this thread was more to get a gauge on what side of the fence-- if any-- people feel on this document of information. I appreciate the feedback though and may go back and reword that sentence.
So rules as intended by 1 person is RAI, but official rulings compiled presented by the rules team of the developing company as a whole is... less?
I just fail to follow your reasoning that an official document made by the same company as the rulebooks themselves is less intended than 1 persons opinion. Could you explain again?
You have no bias about the SAC, but your original post does have a bias of RAW over RAI. Which I get. The rules forums can hardly objectively discuss every group play style and house rules, so we discuss RAW, as it is the baseline from which all play variations arise. But RAW should not take precedence over what is fun for the group as a whole.
Cool, I removed that portion of text. Thanks!
No, you misunderstand me. J Craw's tweets are even less representative of the intentions of the entire design team. In terms of what I consider official, it would go like this: Tweets < SAC < Somehow getting clarification from the entire team.
It's possible that the SAC * is* clarification from the entire design team. But that hasn't been my impression of it.
The SAC is official rulings from WoTC, the employers of the design team. I suppose the design team could disagree with their employers, but that doesn't change the official nature of the SAC.
I agree with you that a DM should feel free to change or interpret the rules as they see fit. But I also think that they cannot claim to be relying on the official rules when their decision contradicts either the rule books or the SAC, but then why should they care? They run the game they way they want to. But rules-lawyering players do not have a leg to stand on when they try to claim RAW justification for a rules interpretation that is directly contradicted by the SAC. Their DM could go along, but that's entirely up to them to decide; there is nothing in the official rules that suggests that they should.
By definition, the Sage Advice Compendium (SAC) cannot be RAW, as it is rulings and not the rules themselves.
As to RAI or Neither, that depends on what you consider RAI to mean.
To a vast majority of the community I have seen opinions from, RAI means Rules As Intended.
The problem with this is that WOTC have never presented intent, only rulings made long after the original text was published.
To have intent, we need to see design notes (early drafts, maybe with statements of function; literal statements of intent at time of drafting; pre-existing texts used as examples). As none have ever been presented, we by definition have no intent.
Personally, I view RAI to mean Rules As officially Interpreted, given that best describes such texts. In that vein, the SAC is closest to RAI, but I voted neither, due to the majority sourcing for the SAC.
By looking through the SAC and the Sage Advice twitter feed (available also via sageadvice.eu), it is clear that many of the SAC entries are directly from Jeremy Crawford, who has a history of self-contradiction, snarky non-answers, and simple repeats of the text in question (which answers/explains nothing).
In addition, we have never been presented with who explicitly wrote each text in question, having to trust that either Crawford wrote most of it (highly unlikely), or that he is relaying the opinion of the true author (debatable given his non-answers).
In general, whether it is the SAC or the Sage Advice twitter, I don't consider any of it as more than the opinions of those who explicitly wrote the rulings, since we have nothing to know who wrote each text.
Gotcha.
The SAC is as much a clarification from the entire design team as any published book or official errata. It is just rulings instead of rules and gets updated occasionally. Not being called errata and represented in the actual books is the only thing keeping it from truly being RAW.
SAC is official ruling which to me usually representby the Devs what is meant to be. Its more akin to FAQ than rules though.
Bearing in mind RAW is our term, not WOTC's, the SAC is by definition RAW, because it's an official release from WOTC attempting to convey their RAI, which is what RAW is. The PHB, the DMG, the SAC - all of these have equal status. Likewise, by definition the SAC can't be RAI, because WOTC wrote it down.
Just so you know, it is WotC's term. In "The Role of Rules" from the SAC:
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)