12
\$\begingroup\$

This is not strictly a DnD5 question, but I have not seen any other game where creators share rules interpretations via social media.

Mike Mearls's tweet got me thinking about about the value and strength of these suggestions:

Does the paladin’s Great Weapon Fighting style apply to the radiant damage dice gained from Divine Smite?
No – I'd rule the benefit applies only to the weapon's damage dice.

This is obviously against RAW, but on the other hand he makes very clear that this is only his opinion. So it is just a house-rule from someone who intimately knows the game.

Should we consider tweets when answering questions about rules? Or are they only recommendations?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Why would tweets be particularly favored over other social media? Would Mearls's statement be different or carry different weight if he put the same thing on his Facebook page or whatever? \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Apr 12 '16 at 11:11
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ This isn't something restricted to D&D 5e. We've got similar dev-Tweet answers for Shadowrun, Dresden Files, Mage, Eclipse Phase, Storium, Apocalypse World, Numenera, and in the case of Maid RPG, the game's translator. Here's the search string I used to find those examples. It focuses only on Twitter; I know that G+ is another popular place for devs to talk intimately with the RPG community about their games, and I'm sure there are other platforms too. \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Apr 12 '16 at 11:30
22
\$\begingroup\$

Given context, it's better to have information than not.

With the probable exception of questions, I see no reason to tell people not to mention if a developer has expressed an opinion or shared an insight about a rule. A good answer would of course compare and contrast the dev's comments with the published game materials to whatever extent is appropriate.

\$\endgroup\$
20
\$\begingroup\$

The designers made it clear that rules questions answered by Jeremy Crawford is the official stance of WotC, and many of his answers are turned into errata later on. Granted, that if a ruling isn't in the book yet, it doesn't exist to some strict RAW players. But generally Crawford's posts are what the rules already says, or on rare occasion what they will be with the next errata.

Mearls tweets either what the book says or how he'd rule. He's generally pretty clear on which his answer is depending on how he states it. A lot of times, he will even say, "Not RAW. However, I'd allow it if..." type statements.

Either way, both are great sources for an answer to a question as the designers thoughts (as other answers here have stated).

\$\endgroup\$
15
\$\begingroup\$

Designers' tweets (or any other source of designers' words) are simply what the designers have said. We have no special site rules about how official they are or whether their words = game rules. Nor should we.

If someone is using designers' words in an answer to a question, whether about the rules of a game or something else, it's up to that answer-writer to demonstrate how quoting a designer is relevant. Those that pull it off will get upvotes; those who don't will get downvotes.

\$\endgroup\$
12
\$\begingroup\$

This isn’t a question for meta, not really. The only context where “official rule source” matters is for discussions of RAW, and for those cases, it isn’t for meta to decide that, nor can it be decidable in general.

Official rule sources are those things the publisher labels as such. This is going to vary by publisher, and by edition; D&D 3.5 did not include developer commentary, such as it was; D&D 5e does, at least when it’s Jeremy Crawford’s commentary. D&D 3.5 did not include the FAQ; Pathfinder does.

\$\endgroup\$
10
\$\begingroup\$

Should we consider tweets when answering questions about rules? Or are they only recommendations?

That's a false dichotomy. Refusing to take the actual designer's thoughts into account when trying to understand a game's rules is deliberately ignorant at best.

Now, for a pure Rules As Written question, obviously nothing outside the game's text is a legitimate source. But beyond that specific playstyle, ideally you are trying to actually understand and use working rules, and while you might end up disagreeing with a specific dev ruling, there are absolutely no legitimate reasons not to take them into account.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

Oficial Rules .There's a rule book. Those are written in "stone"(since they probably won't edit and publish a new version)

Then theres the DM rule/Rule Zero . The DM decides what the "rules" on his world are, even if is Mearls or even if it was something said by Gygax, you can use what YOU think is fair, personalized to that moment , your world and your opinion. You can take his rationalization has making more sense then whats on the book, and with that use it. Just like you can do with , any person's rationalization in any media or form of comunication.

But it does not become a "canonical rule" since those are published for everybody in the oficial material and serve has the basis for the games and the house rules. That's what they are, with those, people take and leave and change what they wan't. "Oficial" in this games means "published", equal basis to all. And gateway for your changes and preferences.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ The written in stone does get modified by published errata, in the internet age, by some of the publishers who post such on their web sites. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Apr 21 '16 at 20:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ Whilst I appreciate seeing this position being offered (and it's given me some things to think on), I'm downvoting because I can't entirely agree with this stance on officiality. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Apr 22 '16 at 4:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ Korvin, well I said " probably won't" for a reason, and while that is true , they tend to clarify the rules and not change the main core rule set . Just try to edit to avoid issues of interpretation , for example if you play a module in one way and play again , the rules aplied wont change, but things that you (has de DM ) decided base on interpretation didnt. Doppelgreener , glad it help'd , if there is something i could clarify (maybe its somewhat confuse) say so and I'll try to defend the idea some other way. \$\endgroup\$ – Ace Of Roses Apr 23 '16 at 4:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .