What are appropriate sources to reference in questions tagged [rules-as-written]?

Question

I'm raising this question based on the discossion around these two questions. In the second question, the accepted answer references the Pathfinder FAQ, which is not considered RAW by some users.

The rules-as-written tag was edited out of the question, with the justification that the FAQ was not rules as written, and thus the question couldn't actually be asking for a rules as written answer if the accepted answer referenced the FAQ.

With this in mind, what are appropriate sources to use for an answer to a question tagged rules-as-written? I realize that this is going to be different for different systems, but what kind of guidelines should be used to figure out whether a certain source is RAW or not? Does the opinion of the company publishing the game matter, or the community at large, or just the individual querent?

Answer 1

I'm going to give an extreme answer, but I think it's the right one here.

There's a more fundamental problem than what sources are valid as RAW in a given system. The problem is at least twofold.

1. There is not a universal definition of what is and is not RAW. We see that in the differences between PF and 3.5, we can look at mxy's example with 4e and essentials, we can look all over the place and find people who read the term RAW differently. Tags with that level of ambiguity are a concern.

2. Second, and most importantly, this tag is a meta tag. The true test of a meta tag is whether or not you can envision a question with the tag as it's only tag. What does a RAW question look like without a system tag? Not much to be honest. Meta tags are bad because they don't really convey any information about the question they attempt to restrict the answers. The tag system is meant to indicate what the question is about the questions that should be tagged RAW are ones like the one you asked this morning about how PF determins RAW. Not ones where you want a by-the-book ruling.

That said, there are very few questions like yours and that means the tag is at best misused and at worst completely unnecessary.

So let's do the right thing, SE has trogdor on standby for moments like this.

I say we burninate rules-as-written!

To address the concerns about how to indicate the sources that are considered authoritative. This should be specified in the question if it is a concern. If it becomes a concern as answers are made it should be edited in, and comment notification should be provided to answerers who do not comply. (Further noncompliance should be handled with downvotes and possibly not-an-answer flags as the answer would be out of scope)

Answer 2

There is no one answer, and there should not be a "site rule" on it, it should be determined by the voting system.

Every game system is different. In addition, everyone has different opinions on what sources (which books, FAQs, etc) are valid within a given game system. Rather than come up with meta rules that say "for game system X only a, b, and c are valid," this should be handled by the voting and acceptance system. If a questioner accepts a RAW answer coming from the FAQ - that's fine. If a bunch of people vote it down because they don't accept the FAQ - that's fine. But we don't need to shortcut that with "site rules" created by only a couple site participants. This is why we have an acceptance system and a voting system. Some people don't consider Essentials part of 4e RAW and others do. Some people do and don't accept non-core books, FAQs, errata, etc. Let questioners be as specific as they want and let voters vote on answers they like - authenticity/reliability of sources is part of the baked in voting criteria on all sites, where sources range from textbooks to "my cousin."

Now, there's a bunch of other questions conflated into this particular incident.

1. Was it wise to ask a "Pathfinder, 3.5e, RAW" question? No. RAW asks for a high level of pickiness, and though 3.5e and Pathfinder are more than compatible enough for most players, RAW signals a much more legalistic approach and that's where compatibility splits. If you have a 3.5e/Pathfinder question you are implying a more generalized approach, and those two things are generally in opposition.

2. Was it OK to remove the RAW tag from the question? No. The tag describes the question and not the answers. Just like we don't tag game-recs with the "winning" game (given that can change over time, also), we don't change tagging on questions because someone has a different opinion than the accepted answer. The asker was correct in rolling that change back.

3. Was it OK that the asker accepted an answer that only addressed Pathfinder and not 3.5? Given #1 above, yes. The asker is free to accept whatever answer they find most helpful, not which answer someone else finds most legalistically correct.

Answer 3

Depends on the Company and Community

Most RPG developers have differing views on the matter and the only thing you can really do is check into the company's history of handling FAQ and errata. Do they publish errata? Do FAQ answers sometimes or often involve changing the rules text in question?

In this case...

There are opposing viewpoints both in the community and the company, as broken down below:

3.5 FAQ is not RAW, explicitly; WotC established it only to unofficially interpret rules. WotC chose to create and uphold errata as its method of editing rules, and in addition to this and their statements that FAQ is not RAW we add the issue that the FAQ is normally wrong. The guy they had in charge of it...did not understand the game.

Pathfinder FAQ is RAW. Paizo's official stance on their FAQ system is that it represents needed changes in the rules as well as clarifications. It speaks with the authority of the developers and is used in addition to, or sometimes even instead of, writing formal errata. This has lead to some controversies in the past but Paizo as a company and the Pathfinder community deal in FAQ as RAW.

Therefore: the accepted answer to the second question is incomplete. It resolves the problem only for Pathfinder.

Answer 4

We can't have policy about this because "RAW" is undefined.

"RAW" taken literally means "rules as written". But nobody who discusses "RAW" actually means "the exact words literally written in the rulebook". Everybody knows or can look up what the exact words are—what everyone actually wants is what the words mean and how to apply them to specific circumstances.

Once "RAW" becomes "what the rules as written mean", then we're no longer in objective territory, and have entered the realm of what degree of interpretation is acceptable to an individual while still qualifying as the rules as "written". Ironically, despite the term "RAW" being invented to distinguish from the "rules as intended" ("RAI"), it still means "what is the intended meaning of the rules as written (RAI)?"

Since what "RAW" even means is subjective, what is and isn't a RAW source is subjective. And since the concept of RAW itself helps not one whit in resolving the ambiguity between the written rules and the application thereof, it would solve nothing—and actually cause problems—if we attempted to base any policy on that quicksand.

Besides, it's not normally our job to make rules about "acceptable" answers

Bad answers only get downvoted. That is how SE is designed, and it breaks down otherwise. Only answers that are not even attempting to answer the question are permitted to be deleted. If an answer is "unacceptable" because it cites sources that don't fit a question's criteria, it's a bad answer and the downvote button is happy to help with that.

That we have one policy that contradicts this (our game-rec policy) is a special case and should not be the thin edge of the wedge for introducing answer-deletion policies for other questions. In fact, if accepting game-rec questions continues to undermine our community's ability to cleave to the SE way of doing things, that would be evidence that accepting game-rec questions is a failed experiment!

Answer 5

The same way we can discard a splat book, asking by rules without Complete Arcane, for example, it's valid to ask questions stating "FAQ is IN" or "FAQ is OUT". The only autorithy on whats allowed and what's not is the DM, not even the player that asked the question. Here on RPG Exchange we are not on the roles of Masters nor Players - we are advisors, and we can only give suggestions to the people that come by. A player can check with us if "per the book" his idea works, but if his GM says "Not in my game", then it is out, regardless on what was said here.

We are dealing with games that use creative power and imagination, not with some legal stuff or programming languages. We need to understand that a book can't be more important than the enjoyment of the players and the DM. Asking "Raw only" just cuts out lot's of criativity.

No DM on it's senses will discard a good ideia just because it's not as "the book says". Almost all of the good RPG's call for the Rule Zero, giving complete powers for the players to create their game. We are dealing with a hobby on which people create, discard and change rules according with their tables. A House-Rule is not more or less "official" than any rule that the DM choses to use. "Officialness" is table-dependent.

Really, in the end doesn't matter what are the sources - a book, a homebrew or a FAQ. If the ideia solves someone's problem, then it did it's job. If the D&D FAQ explains something better than the Pathfinder FAQ, then why we don't recommend it?

If a DM closes himself from house-rules, for this or that, then this person must read the Dungeon's Master Guide all over again (or the equivalent book on other systems). If it is a player looking for some big loophole for power, that's not much far away from cheating.

Asking for a "by the book" anwser seens a bit wrong to me. Sometimes the books are not the best way around a problem. I think people should keep their minds open for insight, examples, and advice.

---

Just to let this clear, I'm not saying that asking "how rules work" is "wrong". Im saying that on my viewpoint, refusing off-the-book alternatives just because they are off-the-book is not wise. Systems improve based on house-rules, community feedback, and test, not rule-worshipping. Unearthed Arcana for 3.X is basically made of House-Rules from the community put up together as a supplement. The "Complete" series is not something that just dropped from the heavens, someone had thought about that rules and tested (in theory) before putting them to play. You can ask any question you want, just keep your mind open for different, off-the-book ways of dealing with things.

Afterall, the first D&D is a house-ruled version of a Wargame, it isn't? The RPG was born out of House-rules.