Return to Answer

When people say "Spells do only what they say they do and nothing more" or some similar phrase, they use it for a number of reasons. Though I'll drop the following link as you may find it helpful:

• What is the source of the "spells do only what they say they do" rules interpretation principle?

Answers there give some excellent origins/explanations/uses for the phrase, but what I believe summarizes it best is the following:

I think you will also find that people do not put the books onto some sort of Holy Mantle. In fact, I regularly have fun making fun of the rules and their unceasing problems both with friends and just in the TRPG chat room. The reason we use these flawed, broken, human rules is because we really don't have anything else we can use. They are the unifying factor that actually lets us communicate about the game and have a shared basis for constructing arguments and conclusions.

When people say "Spells do only what they say they do and nothing more" or some similar phrase, they use it for a number of reasons. Though I'll drop the following links as you may find them helpful:

• What is the source of the "spells do only what they say they do" rules interpretation principle?
• What RPG concepts does "rules as written" encompass?

Answers to these give some excellent origins/explanations/uses for both the "spell do only what they say they do" and "Rules As Written" phrases. These two, I believe, summarize them best:

[...] The purpose is to facilitate communication about the rules. Historically, rules-as-written approaches to understanding the rules became far more prominent with the rise of the Internet, and that is no coincidence. While RAW interpretations are prone to many, many flaws when it comes to actually playing the game, ideally RAW provides a foundational basis of the rules that everyone can at least agree on. [...]

I think you will also find that people do not put the books onto some sort of Holy Mantle. In fact, I regularly have fun making fun of the rules and their unceasing problems both with friends and just in the TRPG chat room. The reason we use these flawed, broken, human rules is because we really don't have anything else we can use. They are the unifying factor that actually lets us communicate about the game and have a shared basis for constructing arguments and conclusions.

The phrase in question, regardless, does not come across well

This is expanded much more upon in Korvin's answer, so I would suggest reading that. But the way the phrase comes across and is often used is... bad. It can read as "This was so obvious" or "duh" or in any number of similar ways. Ideally, when this phrase is used, people would also explain the rules because clearly, if somebody is asking about them, there is confusion to be found in them. How the rules are saying what they say should be explained in these cases and this often means the phrase could never have been used in the first place.

There's no need to come across as condescending, which this phrase can certainly come across as, and probably does with some regularity. Of course... there's also the rabbit hole of "anything can be condescending" but I'll swiftly avoid that as it doesn't help anybody.

We have only the rules-text and there isn't anything else we can work with to adjudicate a ruling outside of our own personal experience and knowledge with the game or similar (if not identical) situations. And while people do use that experience aplenty (as they should), the only thing that is actually shared between all of us is the rules-text. We use it because it establishes expectations and allows us to, at least for the most part, agree on how things do work, though perhaps not how they should work.

When wondering how something should work, this enters the territory of the GM, to make houserules, to make their own answers to the questions that the rules left unanswered. And while we can certainly provide our own experiences with these situations and how we have (or would) rule at our own table, this does not speak to your table. That doesn't mean we shouldn't explain how we would rule, but it does mean that we would only be explaining one possible ruling of the infinitely many available.

And that said, I think you will find that there are plenty of answers with "These are the Rules As Written, they are awful and woefully incomplete so here's how I would rule at my own tables". These can improve an answer, but they depart from the shared wording that we can both attempt to interpret. You are merely suggesting a houserule that is, in your opinion, a good one.

We use it because it establishes expectations and allows us to, at least for the most part, agree on how things do work, though perhaps not how they should work.

The rules are not at all the only thing we use

We, as a group, share only the rules-text and there isn't anything else we can work with to adjudicate a ruling from those rules. The other things we have, which are not shared, are our own personal experiences and knowledge with the game. People regularly use their knowledge and experiences in writing answers (as they should), to suggest houserules and explain how things have gone at their own tables. This helps to fill in the gaps when the rules-text is incomplete or just plain wonky. These experiences might not be shared between all of us, like the rules-text is, but it is still valuable in answers.

When wondering how something should work, this enters the territory of the GM, to make houserules, to make their own answers to the questions that the rules left unanswered. And while we can certainly provide our own experiences with these situations and how we have (or would) rule at our own table, this does not speak to your table. That doesn't mean we shouldn't explain how we would rule, but it does mean that we would only be explaining one possible ruling, though a valuable one.

The "problem" is if a question simply asked "How should I houserule when a party member tries to use mage hand on a rat?" This has answers all rooted in opinion, informed opinions, yes, but I certainly believe such a question would be closed on the main site.

And that said, I think you will find that there are plenty of answers with "These are the Rules As Written, they are awful and woefully incomplete so here's how I would rule at my own tables". These improve an answer, but they depart from the shared wording that we can both attempt to interpret. You are suggesting a houserule that is, in your experience, a good one.

We use the Rules As Written because we must

When people say "Spells do only what they say they do and nothing more" or some similar phrase, they use it for a number of reasons. Though I'll drop the following link as you may find it helpful:

• What is the source of the "spells do only what they say they do" rules interpretation principle?

Answers there give some excellent origins/explanations/uses for the phrase, but what I believe summarizes it best is the following:

We on the internet can only tell you that spells do what they say they do, because we are not DMing your game. We cannot change or expand upon the rules and say “this is part of what the spell does.” We do not have that authority; the DM of the game does, and we aren’t that.

We have only the rules-text and there isn't anything else we can work with to adjudicate a ruling outside of our own personal experience and knowledge with the game or similar (if not identical) situations. And while people use that experience aplenty, the only thing that is actually shared between all of us is the rules-text. We use it because it establishes expectations and allows us to, at least for the most part, agree on how things do work, though perhaps not how they should work.

How things should work is primarily opinion-based

When wondering how something should work, this enters the territory of the GM, to make houserules, to make their own answers to the questions that the rules left unanswered. And while we can certainly provide our own experiences with these situations and how we have (or would) rule at our own table, this does not speak to your table. That doesn't mean we shouldn't explain how we would rule, but it does mean that we would only be explaining one possible ruling of the infinitely many available.

And that said, I think you will find that there are plenty of answers with "These are the Rules As Written, they are awful and woefully incomplete so here's how I would rule at my own tables". These can improve an answer, but they depart from the shared wording that we can both attempt to interpret. You are merely suggesting a houserule that is, in your opinion, a good one.

We know the rules have flaws

I think you will also find that people do not put the books onto some sort of Holy Mantle. In fact, I regularly have fun making fun of the rules and their unceasing problems both with friends and just in the TRPG chat room. The reason we use these flawed, broken, human rules is because we really don't have anything else we can use. They are the unifying factor that actually lets us communicate about the game and have a shared basis for constructing arguments and conclusions.

We use the Rules As Written because we must

When people say "Spells do only what they say they do and nothing more" or some similar phrase, they use it for a number of reasons. Though I'll drop the following link as you may find it helpful:

• What is the source of the "spells do only what they say they do" rules interpretation principle?

Answers there give some excellent origins/explanations/uses for the phrase, but what I believe summarizes it best is the following:

[...] We on the internet can only tell you that spells do what they say they do, because we are not DMing your game. We cannot change or expand upon the rules and say “this is part of what the spell does.” We do not have that authority; the DM of the game does, and we aren’t that. [...]

We have only the rules-text and there isn't anything else we can work with to adjudicate a ruling outside of our own personal experience and knowledge with the game or similar (if not identical) situations. And while people do use that experience aplenty (as they should), the only thing that is actually shared between all of us is the rules-text. We use it because it establishes expectations and allows us to, at least for the most part, agree on how things do work, though perhaps not how they should work.

How things should work is primarily opinion-based

When wondering how something should work, this enters the territory of the GM, to make houserules, to make their own answers to the questions that the rules left unanswered. And while we can certainly provide our own experiences with these situations and how we have (or would) rule at our own table, this does not speak to your table. That doesn't mean we shouldn't explain how we would rule, but it does mean that we would only be explaining one possible ruling of the infinitely many available.

And that said, I think you will find that there are plenty of answers with "These are the Rules As Written, they are awful and woefully incomplete so here's how I would rule at my own tables". These can improve an answer, but they depart from the shared wording that we can both attempt to interpret. You are merely suggesting a houserule that is, in your opinion, a good one.

Here is an example of such an answer, and this one is especially good as it mentions how different tables and different playstyles can come to wholly different conclusions even when the text is clear:

• "Does the Spirit Guardians spell hurt friendly creatures if they were not visible at the time the spell was cast?

We know the rules have flaws

I think you will also find that people do not put the books onto some sort of Holy Mantle. In fact, I regularly have fun making fun of the rules and their unceasing problems both with friends and just in the TRPG chat room. The reason we use these flawed, broken, human rules is because we really don't have anything else we can use. They are the unifying factor that actually lets us communicate about the game and have a shared basis for constructing arguments and conclusions.